A message from a Mexican to The USA

[Porter Rockwell]

The United States Supreme Court ruled that it is not a crime for undocumented foreigners to be present in the United States. That is a fact, not a partisan statement. As for your guess, it's most likely wrong which would only prove you're not the beaming paragon of human virtue and knowledge that you pretend.

It's illegal to enter the country illegally. Stop with your ten year old's word games.

It is the federal equivalent to a local improper U Turn. There is NO word game. Congress tried to change the wording from improper to unlawful. That bill failed.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Lol wot? Derp

Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag cheap joo

www.angloisraelites.com

Uh boy

Do the crackajoos have green cards or do they believe in the right to come and go with forged doctors notes and drivers licenses?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It is the federal equivalent to a local improper U Turn. There is NO word game. Congress tried to change the wording from improper to unlawful. That bill failed.

A U-turn that gets you removed from the country.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Unalienable and inalienable do NOT mean the same thing in law. Now, any dumb ass here can look at the Declaration of Independence and see that you were factually wrong there. It would be an exercise in futility to prove to you that, IN LAW, inalienable and unalienable do NOT mean the same thing. You've been proven wrong once and all you come back with is chickenshit name calling you would not say to my face. That shows you're a coward. You've been proven to be wrong; proven to be a coward; proven to not have any facts which is why you had to stoop to name calling. What are you? Like 11?

Unalienable / Inalienable
"The two words mean precisely the same thing. ... The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away."

Fuck off with your idiocy!

Okay smart ass:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}​

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.

BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Notice in these court rulings they do NOT use the word inalienable. They do say that absolute and unalienable are the same. There are no exceptions to an unalienable Right.

Now, let us see how an inalienable right is defined in law:

“Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)

You cannot consent to surrendering or transferring an unalienable Right. That is the whole essence of the word unalienable.

BAM... You are wrong again! How does that keep happening?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Lol wot? Derp

Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag cheap joo

www.angloisraelites.com

Uh boy

Do the crackajoos have green cards or do they believe in the right to come and go with forged doctors notes and drivers licenses?

You are one of those dick lickers that wanted all that National ID bullshit. I lobbied against it. Now that we have a use for it, you want to call me a "Jew" and dress it up a little? You're dumber than dogshit.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Lol wot? Derp

Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag cheap joo

www.angloisraelites.com

Uh boy

Do the crackajoos have green cards or do they believe in the right to come and go with forged doctors notes and drivers licenses?

You are one of those dick lickers that wanted all that National ID bullshit. I lobbied against it. Now that we have a use for it, you want to call me a "Jew" and dress it up a little? You're dumber than dogshit.

What ?
And I did not call you a jew I called you a cheap commie joo

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Lol wot? Derp

Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag cheap joo

Where is YOURS? You lobbied for it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Lol wot? Derp

Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag cheap joo

www.angloisraelites.com

Uh boy

Do the crackajoos have green cards or do they believe in the right to come and go with forged doctors notes and drivers licenses?

You are one of those dick lickers that wanted all that National ID bullshit. I lobbied against it. Now that we have a use for it, you want to call me a "Jew" and dress it up a little? You're dumber than dogshit.

What ?
And I did not call you a jew I called you a cheap commie joo

Same thing hick. Just trying to work around the censors, but we know what you mean.

 

[Gdjjr]

That's actually INalienable rights, Thomas Jefferson.

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


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

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Stone Engraving of the parchment Declaration of Independence (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.

www.archives.gov

 

[Gdjjr]

Are you claiming there is some right for illegals to clean hotel rooms or run lawn mowers in this nation?

Yes. Your ignorance betrays you.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Lol wot? Derp

Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag cheap joo

Where is YOURS? You lobbied for it.

Of course I did insane person

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yes. Your ignorance betrays you.

Well that's just extremely stupid of you.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

BAM... You are wrong again! How does that keep happening?

My cited definition says the two words are interchangeable and mean the same thing.
So no matter which version you chose you wind up saying the same exact thing.
But by all means go ahead and post another long pointless exercise in redundant irrelevancy, clown.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Lol wot? Derp

Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag cheap joo

Where is YOURS? You lobbied for it.

Of course I did insane person

Is that you Dr. Phil? Or Yankee Doodle Shill?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

BAM... You are wrong again! How does that keep happening?

My cited definition says the two words are interchangeable and mean the same thing.
So no matter which version you chose you wind up saying the same exact thing.
But by all means go ahead and post another long pointless exercise in redundant irrelevancy, clown.

Your cited definition has ZERO authority in a court of law.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[Gdjjr]

Well that's just extremely stupid of you.

Not really.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It is the federal equivalent to a local improper U Turn. There is NO word game. Congress tried to change the wording from improper to unlawful. That bill failed.

A U-turn that gets you removed from the country.

Do you have a point? An improper U Turn has an immediate penalty as well. But, like an improper U Turn, once the act is done and nobody catches it, it becomes irrelevant as a point of law. Now, that is a fact, not a partisan political statement.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You do think this land belongs to the Mexicans or the brown people of Sun, or some such bullshit and you on their side AGAINST your fellow Americans.

I didn't see where there is a caveat about skin pigment in the declaration, nor in the constitution, which are the rules

Correct. "Mexicans" are a nation to the South of US, with an historical claim to some of our land. "People of the Sun" is a racial term used by some anti-white racists, in this case referring to such people from outside of our nation, that the lefty believes has some right to our territory.

There is a difference between exercising Liberty and taking over your territory. Citizenship to the third world is what leads to a takeover of your territory. There is no invasion when the relationship is consensual between willing Americans and willing foreigners. You're conflating the two which is why you stay mired in arguments.

.....

My answer to that is, A. no there isn't, and one leads to the other.


First of all, by changing my nation, without my informed consent (as part of the assembled group, Americans,) the immigrants, (illegal and legal) are violating my right to self determination.


and second of all, as they increasingly take over the reins of government, it will NOT be about consensual relations between wiling Americans and willing foreigners, but foreigners imposing their culture and politics on US against our will.

Your response is convoluted, Correll. You have been informed that there is no such thing as "illegal immigration." It is a misnomer. Immigration is citizenship. You don't seem to be able to process that. People coming here to work and partake of the free market are not citizens nor do they seek to become citizens NOR do we need them as citizens. Those people have nothing to do with your Right to self determination.

What IS affecting your Right to self determination is the fact that you cannot hire, fire, rent to and do business with only those people you want to do business with. We are forced to hire people without regard to race, religion, sexual persuasion, etc., etc. whether we want to or not... forced to buy and sell from those people... forced to rent to them. Like the right's misuse of the word immigration, you have a mental stumbling block with self determination. If we were free to voluntarily build our own businesses and free to associate with whomever we like you would have a Right to self determination.

By interfering in the free market, you force foreigners to become citizens. That, in turn, changes the make-up of our legislators and deprives us of having the government envisioned by the founders / framers. Your efforts are bass ackwards. Give people the Right to build their own communities. The whole term MAGA means that America was, at some point, great. So, what happened? You want more and more laws. My strategy is to repeal laws until we get back to America was when it was great.

 

[Correll]

You do think this land belongs to the Mexicans or the brown people of Sun, or some such bullshit and you on their side AGAINST your fellow Americans.

I didn't see where there is a caveat about skin pigment in the declaration, nor in the constitution, which are the rules

Correct. "Mexicans" are a nation to the South of US, with an historical claim to some of our land. "People of the Sun" is a racial term used by some anti-white racists, in this case referring to such people from outside of our nation, that the lefty believes has some right to our territory.

There is a difference between exercising Liberty and taking over your territory. Citizenship to the third world is what leads to a takeover of your territory. There is no invasion when the relationship is consensual between willing Americans and willing foreigners. You're conflating the two which is why you stay mired in arguments.

.....

My answer to that is, A. no there isn't, and one leads to the other.


First of all, by changing my nation, without my informed consent (as part of the assembled group, Americans,) the immigrants, (illegal and legal) are violating my right to self determination.


and second of all, as they increasingly take over the reins of government, it will NOT be about consensual relations between wiling Americans and willing foreigners, but foreigners imposing their culture and politics on US against our will.

Your response is convoluted, Correll. You have been informed that there is no such thing as "illegal immigration." It is a misnomer. Immigration is citizenship. You don't seem to be able to process that. People coming here to work and partake of the free market are not citizens nor do they seek to become citizens NOR do we need them as citizens. Those people have nothing to do with your Right to self determination.

But they do, because they or their children will be become both part of the community and citizens and thus voters.

What IS affecting your Right to self determination is the fact that you cannot hire, fire, rent to and do business with only those people you want to do business with. We are forced to hire people without regard to race, religion, sexual persuasion, etc., etc. whether we want to or not... forced to buy and sell from those people... forced to rent to them. Like the right's misuse of the word immigration, you have a mental stumbling block with self determination. If we were free to voluntarily build our own businesses and free to associate with whomever like you would have a Right to self determination.

Individual choice, is not the same as government policy. An individual has the Right to decide to say, hire who he wants to work in his place of business. You might disagree with the way that right is limited today. I doubt that you are against it is principle.

A restaurant owner wants to hire high school girls to work as cheap waitresses? That is legal and fine.


A strip club owner wants to hire high school girls to work as strippers? I suspect that you support the Right of the local voters to have laws against that.


Policy to regulate the labor market, is not a violation of the Right to Self Determination of the business owner.

By interfering in the free market, you force foreigners to become citizens. That, in turn, changes the make-up of our legislators and deprives us of having the government envisioned by the founders / framers. Your efforts are bass ackwards. Give people the Right to build their own communities. The whole term MAGA means that America was, at some point, great. So, what happened? You want more and more laws. My strategy is to repeal laws until we get back to America was when it was great.

The complete breakdown of the lies of multiculturalism, as tacitly admitted to by rightwinger, in another thread just a few minutes ago, is lending credibility to that as a solution.


But I still want to round up the illegals and deport them. And indefinitely extend the immigration ban.