Cost Of Illegal Immigration Clock

[sparky]

This is where our tax money is being wasted by liberals. OAN News network shows this every hour.

$8-9 thousand a second.


The Cost of Illegal Immigration Clock

Pretty bad situation Hoss

and i'll agree ,something needs be done

But what we miss is WHY it's being foisted on us ,with such vigor

The reason? , Because H1B labor is cheap labor, which the elites who run American and own Congress want to hide behind the whole illegal debacle

That i've done construction for decades lousy with H1B holders made me look into it, they'll always say there's some annual 'cap', but invent enough excuses to have it be 10 fold in reality.

My ICE pal sez i should write my congresscritter, but they'll just tell me what i want to hear, cuz they don't really work for sorts like me

~S~

 

[Third Party]

And what, pray tell, is the root?

I suppose you want the bumper sticker answer. It is wholly inadequate, but here would be SOME of the more obvious observations:

When children enter school, many are from single parent homes, homes that are dysfunctional, and / or homes with drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. living in them. What do you think the divorce rate is in this country?

Well now, the child goes to school and the first thing mommy and / or school officials thoughtfully do is to begin using hard core drugs like Adderall or Ritalin for nonexistent conditions. Then the cycle of solving problems with feel good pills begins. Ultimately the child is in middle school and has graduated to more potent drugs - both legal and illegal. Opioids, as you know are the number ONE over-used drug with Americans consuming over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply. When these kids cannot get the opioids legally, they are available on the black market. You also see doctors prescribing SSRIs (associated with mass shooters) about the same time. It is at this point that many kids begin self medicating with pot, heroin, etc.

By the time this generation is in their 20s, they are dropped from mommy's insurance. It's a terrible situation. These kids are now adults and have no high school diploma, no driver's license, no health insurance no work history, no skill sets, no coping skills, no critical thinking skills, a drug habit and a criminal record.

So, they end up living in mommy's house, rent free, drawing out of the welfare dole because they are lazy mother fuckers - CREATED by mommy, the school system, doctors, the mental health professions and Big Pharma. Nobody is going to hire them. THEY DON'T SHOW UP AND ASK FOR THE JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Who wants someone with a checkered past and no initiative? BTW, the Trump supporters added to the problem with their background check B.S. Today, even if these people try to get their excrement together, they are locked out of a job. They can't get past Big Brother's background checks... put into place by anti-immigrant hacks. They don't get beyond their past.

So, we allow the system to create drug addicts and the resulting profit motive cops have to bust the dealers and steal their profits to buy more military gear and the cycle goes on and on. Government gets bigger, Liberties are lost, and we don't resolve the root of the problem. With a generation (now it's two or more) living off their parents and the free shit you falsely claim undocumented foreigners are getting being given to these lazy pieces of scatological waste and they learn how to make being a welfarite their career.

I advertise for jobs, actually gigs, to help lower income people. Oddly, whites do not apply for the jobs and then they bitch when a foreigner takes the job. If you do hire these people they can't do the job, lacking the mental and physical ability to do so. When they aren't smoking, they are talking on their cell phone. They are leaving a void whereby business has to hire the undocumented foreigner - well that and the fact that if you do background checks, most of those people don't measure up. The foreigners WILL work.

As long as whites don't have to work and mommy is going to put a roof over their head AND as long as we keep creating drug addicts, the drug dealers are going to find ways to supply the demand. Your better course of action is to admit the downfall of our culture and work to change the bottom line. Man up.

Children do not need drugs. We should be utilizing NON-DRUG therapies, see if children are living in dysfunctional homes and / or abusive environments BEFORE putting them on feel good pills. Those who are living in mommy's house rent free, dressing like it's Halloween seven days a week, smoking weed, shorting shit up their nose and spending their money on drugs and tattoos need to figure it out. Help is available. Change lives and change your culture. Quit believing that some idiot politician has the ability to change a morally depraved people that cannot think. - There you go. The Cliff Notes in ten paragraphs.

How about we don't give any handouts? It is not Halloween in the US every day of the year. Whites, blacks, any Americans-no more. And never ever any for illegals

Great platitudes, but no blueprint. See post # 36 for my first suggestion on a real solution.

In order to get on a level playing field, Do you believe in the Rule of Law? Do you support the Constitution as originally written and intended OR are you a supporter of the liberal "living Constitution" idea?

Do what makes sense is what I support.

Really? Explain how enforcing laws, forced through Congress by liberal Democrat, Ted Kennedy, and designed to dilute the white vote in order to make whites the minority makes sense. How does that make sense at any level? That is the mantra we hear: enforce the laws.

Since you deflected on the question of which Constitution you support (an originalist interpretation versus the "living Constitution,"), I'm led to believe that as long as you get your single issue agenda attended to, then to Hell with the Constitution. Correct? I want you to hear from one of our founders:

"But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. 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, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

Do you have any idea what that means?

We cannot sustain our race, our culture, our heritage nor the principles put forward in the Constitution if you're waging war against it just for instant gratification on a single issue.

" For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8: 36

I tilt at one windmill like my insert picture, your're tilting at all of them. Americans don't know there are 50 states, and you want them to be constitutional scholars?

 

[Gdjjr]

You do realize that your citing source is funded by a rich white supremacist, right?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning you. I'm pointing out that if you want to be honest about it, there is a bit of bias in anything John Tanton financed. Secondly, there is no point peeing down peoples neck and telling them this is about anything less that racial preservation. America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion, so it's time to put this subject into its proper perspective.

America was founded on legal immigration. And the information is provided by 3 government agencies, Yale and MIT. 325 billion in 10 months ain't chump change. At 60 billion per year for military spending, illegal aliens are eating up 4 years of defense spending in just 1 year.

Actually this Country was founded on the principle of the self evident truths, all men are created equal and have certain un alienable rights

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

I don't see any caveats pertaining to immigration. In fact, if immigration was an issue in their day the founders would have been considered illegal.

The ONLY way to "fix" the problem the US has is to actually act on the founding principle which would involve free trade, not the controlled sham passed as such. Free is unencumbered. The "facts" in our current case are that the US gov't controls trade. Not only between countries but between citizens. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't have that in mind when they constituted the gov't rules for keeping the gov't at bay and out of the everyday life of citizens.
This Country has many issues. Most of them come from intentional misinterpretation of the rules the empty suits in DC swear, in the affirmative, to protect and defend. How is it they believe they don't have to abide by rules but real people do?

Free Trade is defined as: international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.

It took the founders from the end of the revolution to agree on the constitution several years (the final draft signing/convincing took 13 mos) to come to an agreement called The Constitution. The important aspects being, 1) a representative gov't, not a democracy, 2) rules to help ensure the gov't didn't run rough shod over voters, 3), it didn't make war or willy-nilly decisions without proper procedures being followed.

Yet, here we are, a world wide Empire, with colonies in 80 countries- I guess the legality could be questioned. Right?
The voters in this Country used by politicians to further the reach of the Empire put us into two (2) classes.
Tools or enemies. I'm pretty sure the founders believed that our gov't will only work with virtuous men at the helm.
When the head monkeys (empty suits in DC) act a fool the follower monkeys will do the same.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

This is where our tax money is being wasted by liberals. OAN News network shows this every hour.

$8-9 thousand a second.


The Cost of Illegal Immigration Clock

Pretty bad situation Hoss

and i'll agree ,something needs be done

But what we miss is WHY it's being foisted on us ,with such vigor

The reason? , Because H1B labor is cheap labor, which the elites who run American and own Congress want to hide behind the whole illegal debacle

That i've done construction for decades lousy with H1B holders made me look into it, they'll always say there's some annual 'cap', but invent enough excuses to have it be 10 fold in reality.

My ICE pal sez i should write my congresscritter, but they'll just tell me what i want to hear, cuz they don't really work for sorts like me

~S~

This is an absolute lie. Having worked in immigration law, we were unable to fill employers needs every year I worked in the business. H1B caps were met by April and many farms work at 50 percent capacity with NO AMERICANS applying for the jobs.

 

[Third Party]

You do realize that your citing source is funded by a rich white supremacist, right?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning you. I'm pointing out that if you want to be honest about it, there is a bit of bias in anything John Tanton financed. Secondly, there is no point peeing down peoples neck and telling them this is about anything less that racial preservation. America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion, so it's time to put this subject into its proper perspective.

America was founded on legal immigration. And the information is provided by 3 government agencies, Yale and MIT. 325 billion in 10 months ain't chump change. At 60 billion per year for military spending, illegal aliens are eating up 4 years of defense spending in just 1 year.

Actually this Country was founded on the principle of the self evident truths, all men are created equal and have certain un alienable rights

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

I don't see any caveats pertaining to immigration. In fact, if immigration was an issue in their day the founders would have been considered illegal.

The ONLY way to "fix" the problem the US has is to actually act on the founding principle which would involve free trade, not the controlled sham passed as such. Free is unencumbered. The "facts" in our current case are that the US gov't controls trade. Not only between countries but between citizens. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't have that in mind when they constituted the gov't rules for keeping the gov't at bay and out of the everyday life of citizens.
This Country has many issues. Most of them come from intentional misinterpretation of the rules the empty suits in DC swear, in the affirmative, to protect and defend. How is it they believe they don't have to abide by rules but real people do?

Free Trade is defined as: international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.

It took the founders from the end of the revolution to agree on the constitution several years (the final draft signing/convincing took 13 mos) to come to an agreement called The Constitution. The important aspects being, 1) a representative gov't, not a democracy, 2) rules to help ensure the gov't didn't run rough shod over voters, 3), it didn't make war or willy-nilly decisions without proper procedures being followed.

Yet, here we are, a world wide Empire, with colonies in 80 countries- I guess the legality could be questioned. Right?
The voters in this Country used by politicians to further the reach of the Empire put us into two (2) classes.
Tools or enemies. I'm pretty sure the founders believed that our gov't will only work with virtuous men at the helm.
When the head monkeys (empty suits in DC) act a fool the follower monkeys will do the same.

Our LAW calls for LEGAL immigration. Deport the non-compliant. The rest is bullshit. Thank you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I suppose you want the bumper sticker answer. It is wholly inadequate, but here would be SOME of the more obvious observations:

When children enter school, many are from single parent homes, homes that are dysfunctional, and / or homes with drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. living in them. What do you think the divorce rate is in this country?

Well now, the child goes to school and the first thing mommy and / or school officials thoughtfully do is to begin using hard core drugs like Adderall or Ritalin for nonexistent conditions. Then the cycle of solving problems with feel good pills begins. Ultimately the child is in middle school and has graduated to more potent drugs - both legal and illegal. Opioids, as you know are the number ONE over-used drug with Americans consuming over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply. When these kids cannot get the opioids legally, they are available on the black market. You also see doctors prescribing SSRIs (associated with mass shooters) about the same time. It is at this point that many kids begin self medicating with pot, heroin, etc.

By the time this generation is in their 20s, they are dropped from mommy's insurance. It's a terrible situation. These kids are now adults and have no high school diploma, no driver's license, no health insurance no work history, no skill sets, no coping skills, no critical thinking skills, a drug habit and a criminal record.

So, they end up living in mommy's house, rent free, drawing out of the welfare dole because they are lazy mother fuckers - CREATED by mommy, the school system, doctors, the mental health professions and Big Pharma. Nobody is going to hire them. THEY DON'T SHOW UP AND ASK FOR THE JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Who wants someone with a checkered past and no initiative? BTW, the Trump supporters added to the problem with their background check B.S. Today, even if these people try to get their excrement together, they are locked out of a job. They can't get past Big Brother's background checks... put into place by anti-immigrant hacks. They don't get beyond their past.

So, we allow the system to create drug addicts and the resulting profit motive cops have to bust the dealers and steal their profits to buy more military gear and the cycle goes on and on. Government gets bigger, Liberties are lost, and we don't resolve the root of the problem. With a generation (now it's two or more) living off their parents and the free shit you falsely claim undocumented foreigners are getting being given to these lazy pieces of scatological waste and they learn how to make being a welfarite their career.

I advertise for jobs, actually gigs, to help lower income people. Oddly, whites do not apply for the jobs and then they bitch when a foreigner takes the job. If you do hire these people they can't do the job, lacking the mental and physical ability to do so. When they aren't smoking, they are talking on their cell phone. They are leaving a void whereby business has to hire the undocumented foreigner - well that and the fact that if you do background checks, most of those people don't measure up. The foreigners WILL work.

As long as whites don't have to work and mommy is going to put a roof over their head AND as long as we keep creating drug addicts, the drug dealers are going to find ways to supply the demand. Your better course of action is to admit the downfall of our culture and work to change the bottom line. Man up.

Children do not need drugs. We should be utilizing NON-DRUG therapies, see if children are living in dysfunctional homes and / or abusive environments BEFORE putting them on feel good pills. Those who are living in mommy's house rent free, dressing like it's Halloween seven days a week, smoking weed, shorting shit up their nose and spending their money on drugs and tattoos need to figure it out. Help is available. Change lives and change your culture. Quit believing that some idiot politician has the ability to change a morally depraved people that cannot think. - There you go. The Cliff Notes in ten paragraphs.

How about we don't give any handouts? It is not Halloween in the US every day of the year. Whites, blacks, any Americans-no more. And never ever any for illegals

Great platitudes, but no blueprint. See post # 36 for my first suggestion on a real solution.

In order to get on a level playing field, Do you believe in the Rule of Law? Do you support the Constitution as originally written and intended OR are you a supporter of the liberal "living Constitution" idea?

Do what makes sense is what I support.

Really? Explain how enforcing laws, forced through Congress by liberal Democrat, Ted Kennedy, and designed to dilute the white vote in order to make whites the minority makes sense. How does that make sense at any level? That is the mantra we hear: enforce the laws.

Since you deflected on the question of which Constitution you support (an originalist interpretation versus the "living Constitution,"), I'm led to believe that as long as you get your single issue agenda attended to, then to Hell with the Constitution. Correct? I want you to hear from one of our founders:

"But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. 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, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

Do you have any idea what that means?

We cannot sustain our race, our culture, our heritage nor the principles put forward in the Constitution if you're waging war against it just for instant gratification on a single issue.

" For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8: 36

I tilt at one windmill like my insert picture, your're tilting at all of them. Americans don't know there are 50 states, and you want them to be constitutional scholars?

I would expect that my American brethren take high school civics and be able to answer basic questions about the government and American history.

Through ignorance you're joining a political movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) that advocates following the law when doing so means the end of the white race. They don't think this shit through. It's that plain and simple. Secondary to that, it was having too many laws, granting the government too many powers, and then requiring people to become citizens in order to have basic Liberty that has destroyed this country. The current generation would think the white race lost their damn mind to demand that they be the masters of their own destiny, but that's how we built this country... and we became the envy of the world.

I responded to one poster who, through abject ignorance, claims that we don't hold to the caps in the H1B visas. OMG. Let me tell you the facts. This year we will have naturalized nearly a million new citizens. If you take all the classes of visas and then exclude students, guests, and tourists, the total number of visas is NOWHERE even in the ballpark of the numbers of citizens we naturalize. According to Forbes:

"On April 6, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it “reached the congressionally-mandated 65,000 H-1B visa cap for fiscal year 2019.” USCIS also stated it had “received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to meet the 20,000 visa U.S. advanced degree exemption, known as the master’s cap.” Prior to 1990, H-1 visas were used for high-skilled foreign nationals and had no annual limit. With no concept of future technologies and the increased need for high-skilled labor they would bring, in 1990, Congress imposed an annual limit of 65,000, designated the category H-1B and established other restrictions."

H-1B Visas All Gone For 16th Straight Year

Now you compare that figure of visas to the number of people we naturalize and you might start seeing why I'm posing hard questions. Let's talk about these people we naturalize:

According to the Pew Research Center 13 percent of our federal legislators are immigrants or the children of immigrants. They state:

"There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats. Ten others are Republicans, and one – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – is an independent.

There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats."

In 116th Congress, at least 13% of lawmakers are immigrants or the children of immigrants

Well, at least you can boast that you're giving America away to the third world "legally."

 

[Third Party]

How about we don't give any handouts? It is not Halloween in the US every day of the year. Whites, blacks, any Americans-no more. And never ever any for illegals

Great platitudes, but no blueprint. See post # 36 for my first suggestion on a real solution.

In order to get on a level playing field, Do you believe in the Rule of Law? Do you support the Constitution as originally written and intended OR are you a supporter of the liberal "living Constitution" idea?

Do what makes sense is what I support.

Really? Explain how enforcing laws, forced through Congress by liberal Democrat, Ted Kennedy, and designed to dilute the white vote in order to make whites the minority makes sense. How does that make sense at any level? That is the mantra we hear: enforce the laws.

Since you deflected on the question of which Constitution you support (an originalist interpretation versus the "living Constitution,"), I'm led to believe that as long as you get your single issue agenda attended to, then to Hell with the Constitution. Correct? I want you to hear from one of our founders:

"But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. 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, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

Do you have any idea what that means?

We cannot sustain our race, our culture, our heritage nor the principles put forward in the Constitution if you're waging war against it just for instant gratification on a single issue.

" For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8: 36

I tilt at one windmill like my insert picture, your're tilting at all of them. Americans don't know there are 50 states, and you want them to be constitutional scholars?

I would expect that my American brethren take high school civics and be able to answer basic questions about the government and American history.

Through ignorance you're joining a political movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) that advocates following the law when doing so means the end of the white race. They don't think this shit through. It's that plain and simple. Secondary to that, it was having too many laws, granting the government too many powers, and then requiring people to become citizens in order to have basic Liberty that has destroyed this country. The current generation would think the white race lost their damn mind to demand that they be the masters of their own destiny, but that's how we built this country... and we became the envy of the world.

I responded to one poster who, through abject ignorance, claims that we don't hold to the caps in the H1B visas. OMG. Let me tell you the facts. This year we will have naturalized nearly a million new citizens. If you take all the classes of visas and then exclude students, guests, and tourists, the total number of visas is NOWHERE even in the ballpark of the numbers of citizens we naturalize. According to Forbes:

"On April 6, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it “reached the congressionally-mandated 65,000 H-1B visa cap for fiscal year 2019.” USCIS also stated it had “received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to meet the 20,000 visa U.S. advanced degree exemption, known as the master’s cap.” Prior to 1990, H-1 visas were used for high-skilled foreign nationals and had no annual limit. With no concept of future technologies and the increased need for high-skilled labor they would bring, in 1990, Congress imposed an annual limit of 65,000, designated the category H-1B and established other restrictions."

H-1B Visas All Gone For 16th Straight Year

Now you compare that figure of visas to the number of people we naturalize and you might start seeing why I'm posing hard questions. Let's talk about these people we naturalize:

According to the Pew Research Center 13 percent of our federal legislators are immigrants or the children of immigrants. They state:

"There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats. Ten others are Republicans, and one – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – is an independent.

There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats."

In 116th Congress, at least 13% of lawmakers are immigrants or the children of immigrants

Well, at least you can boast that you're giving America away to the third world "legally."

Dumb down your pontifications for me, OK? You expect wrong if you think kids get much from high school civics. They don't-you have to appeal to their feelings-not their logic. And I don't ascribe to any party and the rule of law is relative-I believe in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience-when it makes sense.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You do realize that your citing source is funded by a rich white supremacist, right?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning you. I'm pointing out that if you want to be honest about it, there is a bit of bias in anything John Tanton financed. Secondly, there is no point peeing down peoples neck and telling them this is about anything less that racial preservation. America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion, so it's time to put this subject into its proper perspective.

America was founded on legal immigration. And the information is provided by 3 government agencies, Yale and MIT. 325 billion in 10 months ain't chump change. At 60 billion per year for military spending, illegal aliens are eating up 4 years of defense spending in just 1 year.

Actually this Country was founded on the principle of the self evident truths, all men are created equal and have certain un alienable rights

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

I don't see any caveats pertaining to immigration. In fact, if immigration was an issue in their day the founders would have been considered illegal.

The ONLY way to "fix" the problem the US has is to actually act on the founding principle which would involve free trade, not the controlled sham passed as such. Free is unencumbered. The "facts" in our current case are that the US gov't controls trade. Not only between countries but between citizens. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't have that in mind when they constituted the gov't rules for keeping the gov't at bay and out of the everyday life of citizens.
This Country has many issues. Most of them come from intentional misinterpretation of the rules the empty suits in DC swear, in the affirmative, to protect and defend. How is it they believe they don't have to abide by rules but real people do?

Free Trade is defined as: international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.

It took the founders from the end of the revolution to agree on the constitution several years (the final draft signing/convincing took 13 mos) to come to an agreement called The Constitution. The important aspects being, 1) a representative gov't, not a democracy, 2) rules to help ensure the gov't didn't run rough shod over voters, 3), it didn't make war or willy-nilly decisions without proper procedures being followed.

Yet, here we are, a world wide Empire, with colonies in 80 countries- I guess the legality could be questioned. Right?
The voters in this Country used by politicians to further the reach of the Empire put us into two (2) classes.
Tools or enemies. I'm pretty sure the founders believed that our gov't will only work with virtuous men at the helm.
When the head monkeys (empty suits in DC) act a fool the follower monkeys will do the same.

Our LAW calls for LEGAL immigration. Deport the non-compliant. The rest is bullshit. Thank you.

As you can see from my last response, what YOU advocate is bullshit that isn't too well thought through. Consider what Gdjjr said and I want to expand on it. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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."

I bolded three words for you. Let me see if you can understand these concepts:

1) Unalienable Rights are bestowed upon all men by a Creator

2) That word unalienable means that those Rights, given by a Creator are above the legislative powers

3) Liberty means: "Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons."

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

FWIW, That definition is from Black's Law Dictionary which is the most authoritative legal dictionary recognized in the legal community

4) Liberty is an unalienable Right that does not depend upon your immigration status. Citizenship, OTOH, is a privilege granted by the government. You can control citizenship, yet choose not to. Meanwhile, you deny to foreigners their Liberty at a cost to your own Freedom and Liberty. It doesn't make a Hell of a lot of sense.

 

[Third Party]

You do realize that your citing source is funded by a rich white supremacist, right?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning you. I'm pointing out that if you want to be honest about it, there is a bit of bias in anything John Tanton financed. Secondly, there is no point peeing down peoples neck and telling them this is about anything less that racial preservation. America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion, so it's time to put this subject into its proper perspective.

America was founded on legal immigration. And the information is provided by 3 government agencies, Yale and MIT. 325 billion in 10 months ain't chump change. At 60 billion per year for military spending, illegal aliens are eating up 4 years of defense spending in just 1 year.

Actually this Country was founded on the principle of the self evident truths, all men are created equal and have certain un alienable rights

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

I don't see any caveats pertaining to immigration. In fact, if immigration was an issue in their day the founders would have been considered illegal.

The ONLY way to "fix" the problem the US has is to actually act on the founding principle which would involve free trade, not the controlled sham passed as such. Free is unencumbered. The "facts" in our current case are that the US gov't controls trade. Not only between countries but between citizens. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't have that in mind when they constituted the gov't rules for keeping the gov't at bay and out of the everyday life of citizens.
This Country has many issues. Most of them come from intentional misinterpretation of the rules the empty suits in DC swear, in the affirmative, to protect and defend. How is it they believe they don't have to abide by rules but real people do?

Free Trade is defined as: international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.

It took the founders from the end of the revolution to agree on the constitution several years (the final draft signing/convincing took 13 mos) to come to an agreement called The Constitution. The important aspects being, 1) a representative gov't, not a democracy, 2) rules to help ensure the gov't didn't run rough shod over voters, 3), it didn't make war or willy-nilly decisions without proper procedures being followed.

Yet, here we are, a world wide Empire, with colonies in 80 countries- I guess the legality could be questioned. Right?
The voters in this Country used by politicians to further the reach of the Empire put us into two (2) classes.
Tools or enemies. I'm pretty sure the founders believed that our gov't will only work with virtuous men at the helm.
When the head monkeys (empty suits in DC) act a fool the follower monkeys will do the same.

Our LAW calls for LEGAL immigration. Deport the non-compliant. The rest is bullshit. Thank you.

As you can see from my last response, what YOU advocate is bullshit that isn't too well thought through. Consider what Gdjjr said and I want to expand on it. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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."

I bolded three words for you. Let me see if you can understand these concepts:

1) Unalienable Rights are bestowed upon all men by a Creator

2) That word unalienable means that those Rights, given by a Creator are above the legislative powers

3) Liberty means: "Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons."

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

FWIW, That definition is from Black's Law Dictionary which is the most authoritative legal dictionary recognized in the legal community

4) Liberty is an unalienable Right that does not depend upon your immigration status. Citizenship, OTOH, is a privilege granted by the government. You can control citizenship, yet choose not to. Meanwhile, you deny to foreigners their Liberty at a cost to your own Freedom and Liberty. It doesn't make a Hell of a lot of sense.

OUR LAW CALLS FOR DEPORTATION OF ILLEGAL ALIENS. PERIOD STOP. Follow the law, if you truly are a citizen.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Great platitudes, but no blueprint. See post # 36 for my first suggestion on a real solution.

In order to get on a level playing field, Do you believe in the Rule of Law? Do you support the Constitution as originally written and intended OR are you a supporter of the liberal "living Constitution" idea?

Do what makes sense is what I support.

Really? Explain how enforcing laws, forced through Congress by liberal Democrat, Ted Kennedy, and designed to dilute the white vote in order to make whites the minority makes sense. How does that make sense at any level? That is the mantra we hear: enforce the laws.

Since you deflected on the question of which Constitution you support (an originalist interpretation versus the "living Constitution,"), I'm led to believe that as long as you get your single issue agenda attended to, then to Hell with the Constitution. Correct? I want you to hear from one of our founders:

"But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. 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, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

Do you have any idea what that means?

We cannot sustain our race, our culture, our heritage nor the principles put forward in the Constitution if you're waging war against it just for instant gratification on a single issue.

" For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8: 36

I tilt at one windmill like my insert picture, your're tilting at all of them. Americans don't know there are 50 states, and you want them to be constitutional scholars?

I would expect that my American brethren take high school civics and be able to answer basic questions about the government and American history.

Through ignorance you're joining a political movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) that advocates following the law when doing so means the end of the white race. They don't think this shit through. It's that plain and simple. Secondary to that, it was having too many laws, granting the government too many powers, and then requiring people to become citizens in order to have basic Liberty that has destroyed this country. The current generation would think the white race lost their damn mind to demand that they be the masters of their own destiny, but that's how we built this country... and we became the envy of the world.

I responded to one poster who, through abject ignorance, claims that we don't hold to the caps in the H1B visas. OMG. Let me tell you the facts. This year we will have naturalized nearly a million new citizens. If you take all the classes of visas and then exclude students, guests, and tourists, the total number of visas is NOWHERE even in the ballpark of the numbers of citizens we naturalize. According to Forbes:

"On April 6, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it “reached the congressionally-mandated 65,000 H-1B visa cap for fiscal year 2019.” USCIS also stated it had “received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to meet the 20,000 visa U.S. advanced degree exemption, known as the master’s cap.” Prior to 1990, H-1 visas were used for high-skilled foreign nationals and had no annual limit. With no concept of future technologies and the increased need for high-skilled labor they would bring, in 1990, Congress imposed an annual limit of 65,000, designated the category H-1B and established other restrictions."

H-1B Visas All Gone For 16th Straight Year

Now you compare that figure of visas to the number of people we naturalize and you might start seeing why I'm posing hard questions. Let's talk about these people we naturalize:

According to the Pew Research Center 13 percent of our federal legislators are immigrants or the children of immigrants. They state:

"There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats. Ten others are Republicans, and one – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – is an independent.

There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats."

In 116th Congress, at least 13% of lawmakers are immigrants or the children of immigrants

Well, at least you can boast that you're giving America away to the third world "legally."

Dumb down your pontifications for me, OK? You expect wrong if you think kids get much from high school civics. They don't-you have to appeal to their feelings-not their logic. And I don't ascribe to any party and the rule of law is relative-I believe in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience-when it makes sense.

That is the problem in America today. You want to play in a complicated world with simple minded solutions.

Well guess what. Employers availed themselves of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience when Americans refuse to apply for and / or work jobs. Allowing one employer to hire foreigners and denying another the same luxury denies to the employer his absolute guaranteed "equal protection of the laws."

All men are created equal in the sense that they have a Right to Liberty. If you deny a foreigner the Right to Liberty when Americans are willingly renting to them, selling to them, hiring them, doing business with companies that utilize their labor, etc. then they too are availing themselves of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. Quotas deny them the same Rights as all men.

The flip side is, NOBODY is forcing you to create a society that has to rely on them. NOBODY forces you to create a society wherein there are so many parent / government created drug addicts. NOBODY forces you to elect political candidates that pass so many laws that it locks out a lot of white people. NOBODY forced you to have laws passed that violate a person's Right to Privacy and never allow them to get beyond their past. You're screwing yourself and imputing the blame onto foreigners. Then you're asking for the government to save you from your own actions.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You do realize that your citing source is funded by a rich white supremacist, right?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning you. I'm pointing out that if you want to be honest about it, there is a bit of bias in anything John Tanton financed. Secondly, there is no point peeing down peoples neck and telling them this is about anything less that racial preservation. America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion, so it's time to put this subject into its proper perspective.

America was founded on legal immigration. And the information is provided by 3 government agencies, Yale and MIT. 325 billion in 10 months ain't chump change. At 60 billion per year for military spending, illegal aliens are eating up 4 years of defense spending in just 1 year.

Actually this Country was founded on the principle of the self evident truths, all men are created equal and have certain un alienable rights

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

I don't see any caveats pertaining to immigration. In fact, if immigration was an issue in their day the founders would have been considered illegal.

The ONLY way to "fix" the problem the US has is to actually act on the founding principle which would involve free trade, not the controlled sham passed as such. Free is unencumbered. The "facts" in our current case are that the US gov't controls trade. Not only between countries but between citizens. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't have that in mind when they constituted the gov't rules for keeping the gov't at bay and out of the everyday life of citizens.
This Country has many issues. Most of them come from intentional misinterpretation of the rules the empty suits in DC swear, in the affirmative, to protect and defend. How is it they believe they don't have to abide by rules but real people do?

Free Trade is defined as: international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.

It took the founders from the end of the revolution to agree on the constitution several years (the final draft signing/convincing took 13 mos) to come to an agreement called The Constitution. The important aspects being, 1) a representative gov't, not a democracy, 2) rules to help ensure the gov't didn't run rough shod over voters, 3), it didn't make war or willy-nilly decisions without proper procedures being followed.

Yet, here we are, a world wide Empire, with colonies in 80 countries- I guess the legality could be questioned. Right?
The voters in this Country used by politicians to further the reach of the Empire put us into two (2) classes.
Tools or enemies. I'm pretty sure the founders believed that our gov't will only work with virtuous men at the helm.
When the head monkeys (empty suits in DC) act a fool the follower monkeys will do the same.

Our LAW calls for LEGAL immigration. Deport the non-compliant. The rest is bullshit. Thank you.

As you can see from my last response, what YOU advocate is bullshit that isn't too well thought through. Consider what Gdjjr said and I want to expand on it. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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."

I bolded three words for you. Let me see if you can understand these concepts:

1) Unalienable Rights are bestowed upon all men by a Creator

2) That word unalienable means that those Rights, given by a Creator are above the legislative powers

3) Liberty means: "Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons."

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

FWIW, That definition is from Black's Law Dictionary which is the most authoritative legal dictionary recognized in the legal community

4) Liberty is an unalienable Right that does not depend upon your immigration status. Citizenship, OTOH, is a privilege granted by the government. You can control citizenship, yet choose not to. Meanwhile, you deny to foreigners their Liberty at a cost to your own Freedom and Liberty. It doesn't make a Hell of a lot of sense.

OUR LAW CALLS FOR DEPORTATION OF ILLEGAL ALIENS. PERIOD STOP. Follow the law, if you truly are a citizen.

Those laws have no constitutional basis.

 

[Third Party]

Do what makes sense is what I support.

Really? Explain how enforcing laws, forced through Congress by liberal Democrat, Ted Kennedy, and designed to dilute the white vote in order to make whites the minority makes sense. How does that make sense at any level? That is the mantra we hear: enforce the laws.

Since you deflected on the question of which Constitution you support (an originalist interpretation versus the "living Constitution,"), I'm led to believe that as long as you get your single issue agenda attended to, then to Hell with the Constitution. Correct? I want you to hear from one of our founders:

"But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. 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, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

Do you have any idea what that means?

We cannot sustain our race, our culture, our heritage nor the principles put forward in the Constitution if you're waging war against it just for instant gratification on a single issue.

" For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8: 36

I tilt at one windmill like my insert picture, your're tilting at all of them. Americans don't know there are 50 states, and you want them to be constitutional scholars?

I would expect that my American brethren take high school civics and be able to answer basic questions about the government and American history.

Through ignorance you're joining a political movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) that advocates following the law when doing so means the end of the white race. They don't think this shit through. It's that plain and simple. Secondary to that, it was having too many laws, granting the government too many powers, and then requiring people to become citizens in order to have basic Liberty that has destroyed this country. The current generation would think the white race lost their damn mind to demand that they be the masters of their own destiny, but that's how we built this country... and we became the envy of the world.

I responded to one poster who, through abject ignorance, claims that we don't hold to the caps in the H1B visas. OMG. Let me tell you the facts. This year we will have naturalized nearly a million new citizens. If you take all the classes of visas and then exclude students, guests, and tourists, the total number of visas is NOWHERE even in the ballpark of the numbers of citizens we naturalize. According to Forbes:

"On April 6, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it “reached the congressionally-mandated 65,000 H-1B visa cap for fiscal year 2019.” USCIS also stated it had “received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to meet the 20,000 visa U.S. advanced degree exemption, known as the master’s cap.” Prior to 1990, H-1 visas were used for high-skilled foreign nationals and had no annual limit. With no concept of future technologies and the increased need for high-skilled labor they would bring, in 1990, Congress imposed an annual limit of 65,000, designated the category H-1B and established other restrictions."

H-1B Visas All Gone For 16th Straight Year

Now you compare that figure of visas to the number of people we naturalize and you might start seeing why I'm posing hard questions. Let's talk about these people we naturalize:

According to the Pew Research Center 13 percent of our federal legislators are immigrants or the children of immigrants. They state:

"There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats. Ten others are Republicans, and one – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – is an independent.

There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats."

In 116th Congress, at least 13% of lawmakers are immigrants or the children of immigrants

Well, at least you can boast that you're giving America away to the third world "legally."

Dumb down your pontifications for me, OK? You expect wrong if you think kids get much from high school civics. They don't-you have to appeal to their feelings-not their logic. And I don't ascribe to any party and the rule of law is relative-I believe in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience-when it makes sense.

That is the problem in America today. You want to play in a complicated world with simple minded solutions.

Well guess what. Employers availed themselves of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience when Americans refuse to apply for and / or work jobs. Allowing one employer to hire foreigners and denying another the same luxury denies to the employer his absolute guaranteed "equal protection of the laws."

All men are created equal in the sense that they have a Right to Liberty. If you deny a foreigner the Right to Liberty when Americans are willingly renting to them, selling to them, hiring them, doing business with companies that utilize their labor, etc. then they too are availing themselves of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. Quotas deny them the same Rights as all men.

The flip side is, NOBODY is forcing you to create a society that has to rely on them. NOBODY forces you to create a society wherein there are so many parent / government created drug addicts. NOBODY forces you to elect political candidates that pass so many laws that it locks out a lot of white people. NOBODY forced you to have laws passed that violate a person's Right to Privacy and never allow them to get beyond their past. You're screwing yourself and imputing the blame onto foreigners. Then you're asking for the government to save you from your own actions.

I did not do any of that pork chop. I want the illegals out period-what don't YOU understand about that?

 

[Third Party]

America was founded on legal immigration. And the information is provided by 3 government agencies, Yale and MIT. 325 billion in 10 months ain't chump change. At 60 billion per year for military spending, illegal aliens are eating up 4 years of defense spending in just 1 year.

Actually this Country was founded on the principle of the self evident truths, all men are created equal and have certain un alienable rights

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

I don't see any caveats pertaining to immigration. In fact, if immigration was an issue in their day the founders would have been considered illegal.

The ONLY way to "fix" the problem the US has is to actually act on the founding principle which would involve free trade, not the controlled sham passed as such. Free is unencumbered. The "facts" in our current case are that the US gov't controls trade. Not only between countries but between citizens. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't have that in mind when they constituted the gov't rules for keeping the gov't at bay and out of the everyday life of citizens.
This Country has many issues. Most of them come from intentional misinterpretation of the rules the empty suits in DC swear, in the affirmative, to protect and defend. How is it they believe they don't have to abide by rules but real people do?

Free Trade is defined as: international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.

It took the founders from the end of the revolution to agree on the constitution several years (the final draft signing/convincing took 13 mos) to come to an agreement called The Constitution. The important aspects being, 1) a representative gov't, not a democracy, 2) rules to help ensure the gov't didn't run rough shod over voters, 3), it didn't make war or willy-nilly decisions without proper procedures being followed.

Yet, here we are, a world wide Empire, with colonies in 80 countries- I guess the legality could be questioned. Right?
The voters in this Country used by politicians to further the reach of the Empire put us into two (2) classes.
Tools or enemies. I'm pretty sure the founders believed that our gov't will only work with virtuous men at the helm.
When the head monkeys (empty suits in DC) act a fool the follower monkeys will do the same.

Our LAW calls for LEGAL immigration. Deport the non-compliant. The rest is bullshit. Thank you.

As you can see from my last response, what YOU advocate is bullshit that isn't too well thought through. Consider what Gdjjr said and I want to expand on it. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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."

I bolded three words for you. Let me see if you can understand these concepts:

1) Unalienable Rights are bestowed upon all men by a Creator

2) That word unalienable means that those Rights, given by a Creator are above the legislative powers

3) Liberty means: "Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons."

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

FWIW, That definition is from Black's Law Dictionary which is the most authoritative legal dictionary recognized in the legal community

4) Liberty is an unalienable Right that does not depend upon your immigration status. Citizenship, OTOH, is a privilege granted by the government. You can control citizenship, yet choose not to. Meanwhile, you deny to foreigners their Liberty at a cost to your own Freedom and Liberty. It doesn't make a Hell of a lot of sense.

OUR LAW CALLS FOR DEPORTATION OF ILLEGAL ALIENS. PERIOD STOP. Follow the law, if you truly are a citizen.

Those laws have no constitutional basis.

Who cares? It is a law-obey it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Really? Explain how enforcing laws, forced through Congress by liberal Democrat, Ted Kennedy, and designed to dilute the white vote in order to make whites the minority makes sense. How does that make sense at any level? That is the mantra we hear: enforce the laws.

Since you deflected on the question of which Constitution you support (an originalist interpretation versus the "living Constitution,"), I'm led to believe that as long as you get your single issue agenda attended to, then to Hell with the Constitution. Correct? I want you to hear from one of our founders:

"But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. 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, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (1795)

Do you have any idea what that means?

We cannot sustain our race, our culture, our heritage nor the principles put forward in the Constitution if you're waging war against it just for instant gratification on a single issue.

" For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8: 36

I tilt at one windmill like my insert picture, your're tilting at all of them. Americans don't know there are 50 states, and you want them to be constitutional scholars?

I would expect that my American brethren take high school civics and be able to answer basic questions about the government and American history.

Through ignorance you're joining a political movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) that advocates following the law when doing so means the end of the white race. They don't think this shit through. It's that plain and simple. Secondary to that, it was having too many laws, granting the government too many powers, and then requiring people to become citizens in order to have basic Liberty that has destroyed this country. The current generation would think the white race lost their damn mind to demand that they be the masters of their own destiny, but that's how we built this country... and we became the envy of the world.

I responded to one poster who, through abject ignorance, claims that we don't hold to the caps in the H1B visas. OMG. Let me tell you the facts. This year we will have naturalized nearly a million new citizens. If you take all the classes of visas and then exclude students, guests, and tourists, the total number of visas is NOWHERE even in the ballpark of the numbers of citizens we naturalize. According to Forbes:

"On April 6, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it “reached the congressionally-mandated 65,000 H-1B visa cap for fiscal year 2019.” USCIS also stated it had “received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to meet the 20,000 visa U.S. advanced degree exemption, known as the master’s cap.” Prior to 1990, H-1 visas were used for high-skilled foreign nationals and had no annual limit. With no concept of future technologies and the increased need for high-skilled labor they would bring, in 1990, Congress imposed an annual limit of 65,000, designated the category H-1B and established other restrictions."

H-1B Visas All Gone For 16th Straight Year

Now you compare that figure of visas to the number of people we naturalize and you might start seeing why I'm posing hard questions. Let's talk about these people we naturalize:

According to the Pew Research Center 13 percent of our federal legislators are immigrants or the children of immigrants. They state:

"There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats. Ten others are Republicans, and one – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – is an independent.

There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats."

In 116th Congress, at least 13% of lawmakers are immigrants or the children of immigrants

Well, at least you can boast that you're giving America away to the third world "legally."

Dumb down your pontifications for me, OK? You expect wrong if you think kids get much from high school civics. They don't-you have to appeal to their feelings-not their logic. And I don't ascribe to any party and the rule of law is relative-I believe in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience-when it makes sense.

That is the problem in America today. You want to play in a complicated world with simple minded solutions.

Well guess what. Employers availed themselves of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience when Americans refuse to apply for and / or work jobs. Allowing one employer to hire foreigners and denying another the same luxury denies to the employer his absolute guaranteed "equal protection of the laws."

All men are created equal in the sense that they have a Right to Liberty. If you deny a foreigner the Right to Liberty when Americans are willingly renting to them, selling to them, hiring them, doing business with companies that utilize their labor, etc. then they too are availing themselves of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. Quotas deny them the same Rights as all men.

The flip side is, NOBODY is forcing you to create a society that has to rely on them. NOBODY forces you to create a society wherein there are so many parent / government created drug addicts. NOBODY forces you to elect political candidates that pass so many laws that it locks out a lot of white people. NOBODY forced you to have laws passed that violate a person's Right to Privacy and never allow them to get beyond their past. You're screwing yourself and imputing the blame onto foreigners. Then you're asking for the government to save you from your own actions.

I did not do any of that pork chop. I want the illegals out period-what don't YOU understand about that?

I understand that you can want in one hand and take a giant dump in one hand and see which gets filled first

I got it - you can't read past two sentences and you don't give a rip about the Constitution of the United States NOR do you appreciate the Liberties and Freedoms our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for their posterity

If something gets done to pacify you and give you instant gratification, you accept it regardless of the costs. Got it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Actually this Country was founded on the principle of the self evident truths, all men are created equal and have certain un alienable rights

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

I don't see any caveats pertaining to immigration. In fact, if immigration was an issue in their day the founders would have been considered illegal.

The ONLY way to "fix" the problem the US has is to actually act on the founding principle which would involve free trade, not the controlled sham passed as such. Free is unencumbered. The "facts" in our current case are that the US gov't controls trade. Not only between countries but between citizens. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't have that in mind when they constituted the gov't rules for keeping the gov't at bay and out of the everyday life of citizens.
This Country has many issues. Most of them come from intentional misinterpretation of the rules the empty suits in DC swear, in the affirmative, to protect and defend. How is it they believe they don't have to abide by rules but real people do?

Free Trade is defined as: international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.

It took the founders from the end of the revolution to agree on the constitution several years (the final draft signing/convincing took 13 mos) to come to an agreement called The Constitution. The important aspects being, 1) a representative gov't, not a democracy, 2) rules to help ensure the gov't didn't run rough shod over voters, 3), it didn't make war or willy-nilly decisions without proper procedures being followed.

Yet, here we are, a world wide Empire, with colonies in 80 countries- I guess the legality could be questioned. Right?
The voters in this Country used by politicians to further the reach of the Empire put us into two (2) classes.
Tools or enemies. I'm pretty sure the founders believed that our gov't will only work with virtuous men at the helm.
When the head monkeys (empty suits in DC) act a fool the follower monkeys will do the same.

Our LAW calls for LEGAL immigration. Deport the non-compliant. The rest is bullshit. Thank you.

As you can see from my last response, what YOU advocate is bullshit that isn't too well thought through. Consider what Gdjjr said and I want to expand on it. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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."

I bolded three words for you. Let me see if you can understand these concepts:

1) Unalienable Rights are bestowed upon all men by a Creator

2) That word unalienable means that those Rights, given by a Creator are above the legislative powers

3) Liberty means: "Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons."

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

FWIW, That definition is from Black's Law Dictionary which is the most authoritative legal dictionary recognized in the legal community

4) Liberty is an unalienable Right that does not depend upon your immigration status. Citizenship, OTOH, is a privilege granted by the government. You can control citizenship, yet choose not to. Meanwhile, you deny to foreigners their Liberty at a cost to your own Freedom and Liberty. It doesn't make a Hell of a lot of sense.

OUR LAW CALLS FOR DEPORTATION OF ILLEGAL ALIENS. PERIOD STOP. Follow the law, if you truly are a citizen.

Those laws have no constitutional basis.

Who cares? It is a law-obey it.

Yeah, I bet you obey every law on the books and when Uncle Scam comes around to collect all those evil "black assault rifles," I expect to see your smiling face at the front of the line. For everyone else, here is a legal lesson for you:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it. Since that is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, you have it on good authority

 

[Third Party]

I tilt at one windmill like my insert picture, your're tilting at all of them. Americans don't know there are 50 states, and you want them to be constitutional scholars?

I would expect that my American brethren take high school civics and be able to answer basic questions about the government and American history.

Through ignorance you're joining a political movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) that advocates following the law when doing so means the end of the white race. They don't think this shit through. It's that plain and simple. Secondary to that, it was having too many laws, granting the government too many powers, and then requiring people to become citizens in order to have basic Liberty that has destroyed this country. The current generation would think the white race lost their damn mind to demand that they be the masters of their own destiny, but that's how we built this country... and we became the envy of the world.

I responded to one poster who, through abject ignorance, claims that we don't hold to the caps in the H1B visas. OMG. Let me tell you the facts. This year we will have naturalized nearly a million new citizens. If you take all the classes of visas and then exclude students, guests, and tourists, the total number of visas is NOWHERE even in the ballpark of the numbers of citizens we naturalize. According to Forbes:

"On April 6, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it “reached the congressionally-mandated 65,000 H-1B visa cap for fiscal year 2019.” USCIS also stated it had “received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to meet the 20,000 visa U.S. advanced degree exemption, known as the master’s cap.” Prior to 1990, H-1 visas were used for high-skilled foreign nationals and had no annual limit. With no concept of future technologies and the increased need for high-skilled labor they would bring, in 1990, Congress imposed an annual limit of 65,000, designated the category H-1B and established other restrictions."

H-1B Visas All Gone For 16th Straight Year

Now you compare that figure of visas to the number of people we naturalize and you might start seeing why I'm posing hard questions. Let's talk about these people we naturalize:

According to the Pew Research Center 13 percent of our federal legislators are immigrants or the children of immigrants. They state:

"There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats. Ten others are Republicans, and one – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – is an independent.

There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats."

In 116th Congress, at least 13% of lawmakers are immigrants or the children of immigrants

Well, at least you can boast that you're giving America away to the third world "legally."

Dumb down your pontifications for me, OK? You expect wrong if you think kids get much from high school civics. They don't-you have to appeal to their feelings-not their logic. And I don't ascribe to any party and the rule of law is relative-I believe in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience-when it makes sense.

That is the problem in America today. You want to play in a complicated world with simple minded solutions.

Well guess what. Employers availed themselves of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience when Americans refuse to apply for and / or work jobs. Allowing one employer to hire foreigners and denying another the same luxury denies to the employer his absolute guaranteed "equal protection of the laws."

All men are created equal in the sense that they have a Right to Liberty. If you deny a foreigner the Right to Liberty when Americans are willingly renting to them, selling to them, hiring them, doing business with companies that utilize their labor, etc. then they too are availing themselves of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. Quotas deny them the same Rights as all men.

The flip side is, NOBODY is forcing you to create a society that has to rely on them. NOBODY forces you to create a society wherein there are so many parent / government created drug addicts. NOBODY forces you to elect political candidates that pass so many laws that it locks out a lot of white people. NOBODY forced you to have laws passed that violate a person's Right to Privacy and never allow them to get beyond their past. You're screwing yourself and imputing the blame onto foreigners. Then you're asking for the government to save you from your own actions.

I did not do any of that pork chop. I want the illegals out period-what don't YOU understand about that?

I understand that you can want in one hand and take a giant dump in one hand and see which gets filled first

I got it - you can't read past two sentences and you don't give a rip about the Constitution of the United States NOR do you appreciate the Liberties and Freedoms our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for their posterity

If something gets done to pacify you and give you instant gratification, you accept it regardless of the costs. Got it.

No, I don't give a RIP about your boring, pedantic, lectures. If you only want me to want what you think I should, you are the worst example of hypocrisy. .

 

[Third Party]

Our LAW calls for LEGAL immigration. Deport the non-compliant. The rest is bullshit. Thank you.

As you can see from my last response, what YOU advocate is bullshit that isn't too well thought through. Consider what Gdjjr said and I want to expand on it. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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."

I bolded three words for you. Let me see if you can understand these concepts:

1) Unalienable Rights are bestowed upon all men by a Creator

2) That word unalienable means that those Rights, given by a Creator are above the legislative powers

3) Liberty means: "Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons."

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

FWIW, That definition is from Black's Law Dictionary which is the most authoritative legal dictionary recognized in the legal community

4) Liberty is an unalienable Right that does not depend upon your immigration status. Citizenship, OTOH, is a privilege granted by the government. You can control citizenship, yet choose not to. Meanwhile, you deny to foreigners their Liberty at a cost to your own Freedom and Liberty. It doesn't make a Hell of a lot of sense.

OUR LAW CALLS FOR DEPORTATION OF ILLEGAL ALIENS. PERIOD STOP. Follow the law, if you truly are a citizen.

Those laws have no constitutional basis.

Who cares? It is a law-obey it.

Yeah, I bet you obey every law on the books and when Uncle Scam comes around to collect all those evil "black assault rifles," I expect to see your smiling face at the front of the line. For everyone else, here is a legal lesson for you:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it. Since that is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, you have it on good authority

ooh another lesson for me. I don't have to read any further to know you are upon your soapbox again. Try listening to somebody else for a change-even the kooks on this board have some interesting views.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I would expect that my American brethren take high school civics and be able to answer basic questions about the government and American history.

Through ignorance you're joining a political movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) that advocates following the law when doing so means the end of the white race. They don't think this shit through. It's that plain and simple. Secondary to that, it was having too many laws, granting the government too many powers, and then requiring people to become citizens in order to have basic Liberty that has destroyed this country. The current generation would think the white race lost their damn mind to demand that they be the masters of their own destiny, but that's how we built this country... and we became the envy of the world.

I responded to one poster who, through abject ignorance, claims that we don't hold to the caps in the H1B visas. OMG. Let me tell you the facts. This year we will have naturalized nearly a million new citizens. If you take all the classes of visas and then exclude students, guests, and tourists, the total number of visas is NOWHERE even in the ballpark of the numbers of citizens we naturalize. According to Forbes:

"On April 6, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it “reached the congressionally-mandated 65,000 H-1B visa cap for fiscal year 2019.” USCIS also stated it had “received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to meet the 20,000 visa U.S. advanced degree exemption, known as the master’s cap.” Prior to 1990, H-1 visas were used for high-skilled foreign nationals and had no annual limit. With no concept of future technologies and the increased need for high-skilled labor they would bring, in 1990, Congress imposed an annual limit of 65,000, designated the category H-1B and established other restrictions."

H-1B Visas All Gone For 16th Straight Year

Now you compare that figure of visas to the number of people we naturalize and you might start seeing why I'm posing hard questions. Let's talk about these people we naturalize:

According to the Pew Research Center 13 percent of our federal legislators are immigrants or the children of immigrants. They state:

"There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats. Ten others are Republicans, and one – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – is an independent.

There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats."

In 116th Congress, at least 13% of lawmakers are immigrants or the children of immigrants

Well, at least you can boast that you're giving America away to the third world "legally."

Dumb down your pontifications for me, OK? You expect wrong if you think kids get much from high school civics. They don't-you have to appeal to their feelings-not their logic. And I don't ascribe to any party and the rule of law is relative-I believe in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience-when it makes sense.

That is the problem in America today. You want to play in a complicated world with simple minded solutions.

Well guess what. Employers availed themselves of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience when Americans refuse to apply for and / or work jobs. Allowing one employer to hire foreigners and denying another the same luxury denies to the employer his absolute guaranteed "equal protection of the laws."

All men are created equal in the sense that they have a Right to Liberty. If you deny a foreigner the Right to Liberty when Americans are willingly renting to them, selling to them, hiring them, doing business with companies that utilize their labor, etc. then they too are availing themselves of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. Quotas deny them the same Rights as all men.

The flip side is, NOBODY is forcing you to create a society that has to rely on them. NOBODY forces you to create a society wherein there are so many parent / government created drug addicts. NOBODY forces you to elect political candidates that pass so many laws that it locks out a lot of white people. NOBODY forced you to have laws passed that violate a person's Right to Privacy and never allow them to get beyond their past. You're screwing yourself and imputing the blame onto foreigners. Then you're asking for the government to save you from your own actions.

I did not do any of that pork chop. I want the illegals out period-what don't YOU understand about that?

I understand that you can want in one hand and take a giant dump in one hand and see which gets filled first

I got it - you can't read past two sentences and you don't give a rip about the Constitution of the United States NOR do you appreciate the Liberties and Freedoms our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for their posterity

If something gets done to pacify you and give you instant gratification, you accept it regardless of the costs. Got it.

No, I don't give a RIP about your boring, pedantic, lectures. If you only want me to want what you think I should, you are the worst example of hypocrisy. .

You talk shit and sound like a moron. It takes fucking coward to even imply I'm a hypocrite. I've spilled more blood and made more sacrifices for this cause than your sorry, lazy, uneducated, cowardly ass ever will.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

As you can see from my last response, what YOU advocate is bullshit that isn't too well thought through. Consider what Gdjjr said and I want to expand on it. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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."

I bolded three words for you. Let me see if you can understand these concepts:

1) Unalienable Rights are bestowed upon all men by a Creator

2) That word unalienable means that those Rights, given by a Creator are above the legislative powers

3) Liberty means: "Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons."

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

FWIW, That definition is from Black's Law Dictionary which is the most authoritative legal dictionary recognized in the legal community

4) Liberty is an unalienable Right that does not depend upon your immigration status. Citizenship, OTOH, is a privilege granted by the government. You can control citizenship, yet choose not to. Meanwhile, you deny to foreigners their Liberty at a cost to your own Freedom and Liberty. It doesn't make a Hell of a lot of sense.

OUR LAW CALLS FOR DEPORTATION OF ILLEGAL ALIENS. PERIOD STOP. Follow the law, if you truly are a citizen.

Those laws have no constitutional basis.

Who cares? It is a law-obey it.

Yeah, I bet you obey every law on the books and when Uncle Scam comes around to collect all those evil "black assault rifles," I expect to see your smiling face at the front of the line. For everyone else, here is a legal lesson for you:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it. Since that is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, you have it on good authority

ooh another lesson for me. I don't have to read any further to know you are upon your soapbox again. Try listening to somebody else for a change-even the kooks on this board have some interesting views.

Blah, blah, blah. You are divisive and ignorant. Remain that way. Better to have arrogant asshats like you pecking a keyboard than in the real fight.

 

[Third Party]

Dumb down your pontifications for me, OK? You expect wrong if you think kids get much from high school civics. They don't-you have to appeal to their feelings-not their logic. And I don't ascribe to any party and the rule of law is relative-I believe in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience-when it makes sense.

That is the problem in America today. You want to play in a complicated world with simple minded solutions.

Well guess what. Employers availed themselves of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience when Americans refuse to apply for and / or work jobs. Allowing one employer to hire foreigners and denying another the same luxury denies to the employer his absolute guaranteed "equal protection of the laws."

All men are created equal in the sense that they have a Right to Liberty. If you deny a foreigner the Right to Liberty when Americans are willingly renting to them, selling to them, hiring them, doing business with companies that utilize their labor, etc. then they too are availing themselves of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. Quotas deny them the same Rights as all men.

The flip side is, NOBODY is forcing you to create a society that has to rely on them. NOBODY forces you to create a society wherein there are so many parent / government created drug addicts. NOBODY forces you to elect political candidates that pass so many laws that it locks out a lot of white people. NOBODY forced you to have laws passed that violate a person's Right to Privacy and never allow them to get beyond their past. You're screwing yourself and imputing the blame onto foreigners. Then you're asking for the government to save you from your own actions.

I did not do any of that pork chop. I want the illegals out period-what don't YOU understand about that?

I understand that you can want in one hand and take a giant dump in one hand and see which gets filled first

I got it - you can't read past two sentences and you don't give a rip about the Constitution of the United States NOR do you appreciate the Liberties and Freedoms our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for their posterity

If something gets done to pacify you and give you instant gratification, you accept it regardless of the costs. Got it.

No, I don't give a RIP about your boring, pedantic, lectures. If you only want me to want what you think I should, you are the worst example of hypocrisy. .

You talk shit and sound like a moron. It takes fucking coward to even imply I'm a hypocrite. I've spilled more blood and made more sacrifices for this cause than your sorry, lazy, uneducated, cowardly ass ever will.

Oh please, brag some more to all of us undeserving posters-you really want to call us deplorables, don't you?