"There shall be open borders"

[TNHarley]

Open Orders are probably how your ancestors got here.

Do you guys ever get tired of sounding like morons?
Apparently not since that fallacy is about 20 years old..

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Could you elaborate on that?

Our ancestors werent "illegal immigrants"

 

[Unkotare]

That’s called America.

It's chaotic. But, the reality is if the people who obsess over immigration are not ready for an internal war, the fight will be over .....

What "internal war"?

The only thing that pisses the right off enough to push themselves away from their computers is this unhealthy obsession they have with so - called "illegal aliens." America leads the world in the number of people on SSRIs, but that's not a problem (even with over half of those people not meeting the medical standards to be prescribed the drug.) But, that's not a problem - even though virtually mass shooter is on those drugs.

Over 80 percent of the world's oipoids are consumed by Americans.

Foreign companies have been gobbling up American businesses for years and there is never a problem with that:

The Foreign Companies That Are Buying Up America

Over 10 percent of Americans admit that they use illegal drugs:

Ten percent of Americans admit illegal drug use

16.7 percent of Americans are on legal anti-depressants (whites at a ratio of 2 to 1 over non-whites.)

One in 6 Americans take antidepressants, other psychiatric drugs

It's all cool. But , somebody saw a Hispanic cut their neighbor's lawn and the sky is falling. time to forfeit your Rights, scrap the Constitution, and accept ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

If there is to be any internal war in this country, it will be over immigration. Anti-immigrants are the only people who cannot function on a normal level. So, if all they're going to do is chant their standard mantra (which has been a losing proposition for them thus far), then we will become a NEW WORLD ORDER society.

I'm betting they fold up like an accordion after the next presidential election.

Boat load of red herrings. ^^^^^^

They are simple facts about the condition of America. While the decent people should be up in arms (no pun intended), they accept the demise of their nation without so much as a whimper.

So, when this nutty wall idea does not produce the results the anti-immigrant lobby seeks, they are stuck with tyranny and oppression - a condition that they and they alone created with their Constitution Free Zone, National ID / REAL ID Act, etc.

Even IF the wall is built, like the Berlin Wall, whatever goes up must come down. The right would be well advised to rethink their solutions and do things that would produce an outcome they can live with without taking a giant shit on the Freedoms and Liberties the Constitution guarantees to us.

You’re all over the place. What exactly is it you understand the topic of this thread to be?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

There shan't be open borders!

How about that?

Deal with it!

As long as you want cheap lettuce and want to shit on a clean toilet, there will be open borders.

You have someone clean your toilet for you? Are you one of those self-hating bourgeoisie types that projects their own guilt onto their entire demographic?

Is there nothing racist about implying that the greatest contributions to our society from our friends immigrating over the southern border are cheap farm and cleaning labor?

 

[Humorme]

Open Orders are probably how your ancestors got here.

Do you guys ever get tired of sounding like morons?
Apparently not since that fallacy is about 20 years old..

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Could you elaborate on that?

Our ancestors werent "illegal immigrants"

Did they ask the Indians permission? I'm not an authority on the subject, but there is a part of the Declaration of Independence that made me question all of this, It says:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Hopefully, you can shed some light by telling me more about your view on how the colonists were not the equivalent of "illegal immigrants."

I don't have a view either way on this, just a curiosity .

 

[Humorme]

It's chaotic. But, the reality is if the people who obsess over immigration are not ready for an internal war, the fight will be over .....

What "internal war"?

The only thing that pisses the right off enough to push themselves away from their computers is this unhealthy obsession they have with so - called "illegal aliens." America leads the world in the number of people on SSRIs, but that's not a problem (even with over half of those people not meeting the medical standards to be prescribed the drug.) But, that's not a problem - even though virtually mass shooter is on those drugs.

Over 80 percent of the world's oipoids are consumed by Americans.

Foreign companies have been gobbling up American businesses for years and there is never a problem with that:

The Foreign Companies That Are Buying Up America

Over 10 percent of Americans admit that they use illegal drugs:

Ten percent of Americans admit illegal drug use

16.7 percent of Americans are on legal anti-depressants (whites at a ratio of 2 to 1 over non-whites.)

One in 6 Americans take antidepressants, other psychiatric drugs

It's all cool. But , somebody saw a Hispanic cut their neighbor's lawn and the sky is falling. time to forfeit your Rights, scrap the Constitution, and accept ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

If there is to be any internal war in this country, it will be over immigration. Anti-immigrants are the only people who cannot function on a normal level. So, if all they're going to do is chant their standard mantra (which has been a losing proposition for them thus far), then we will become a NEW WORLD ORDER society.

I'm betting they fold up like an accordion after the next presidential election.

Boat load of red herrings. ^^^^^^

They are simple facts about the condition of America. While the decent people should be up in arms (no pun intended), they accept the demise of their nation without so much as a whimper.

So, when this nutty wall idea does not produce the results the anti-immigrant lobby seeks, they are stuck with tyranny and oppression - a condition that they and they alone created with their Constitution Free Zone, National ID / REAL ID Act, etc.

Even IF the wall is built, like the Berlin Wall, whatever goes up must come down. The right would be well advised to rethink their solutions and do things that would produce an outcome they can live with without taking a giant shit on the Freedoms and Liberties the Constitution guarantees to us.

You’re all over the place. What exactly is it you understand the topic of this thread to be?

The topic of the thread is that some guy wrote an article about the demise of the nation - state. In short, there will be no borders in the future.

That brings out the people who take the extreme position that they support the concept of borders to the point that they will forfeit every constitutional Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for we, the people.

So, what do you think this is all about?

 

[TNHarley]

Open Orders are probably how your ancestors got here.

Do you guys ever get tired of sounding like morons?
Apparently not since that fallacy is about 20 years old..

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Could you elaborate on that?

Our ancestors werent "illegal immigrants"

Did they ask the Indians permission? I'm not an authority on the subject, but there is a part of the Declaration of Independence that made me question all of this, It says:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Hopefully, you can shed some light by telling me more about your view on how the colonists were not the equivalent of "illegal immigrants."

I don't have a view either way on this, just a curiosity .

"illegal" is a legality concept. They didnt have a court system.
The use of terminology is what makes it a fallacy.

 

[Humorme]

Open Orders are probably how your ancestors got here.

Do you guys ever get tired of sounding like morons?
Apparently not since that fallacy is about 20 years old..

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Could you elaborate on that?

Our ancestors werent "illegal immigrants"

Did they ask the Indians permission? I'm not an authority on the subject, but there is a part of the Declaration of Independence that made me question all of this, It says:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Hopefully, you can shed some light by telling me more about your view on how the colonists were not the equivalent of "illegal immigrants."

I don't have a view either way on this, just a curiosity .

"illegal" is a legality concept. They didnt have a court system.
The use of terminology is what makes it a fallacy.

The Indians waged war against the whites. That should have been enough to say that they weren't exactly welcome. The Cherokees did not have a written language until the early to mid 1800s. But, they still had laws.

 

[TNHarley]

Do you guys ever get tired of sounding like morons?
Apparently not since that fallacy is about 20 years old..

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Could you elaborate on that?

Our ancestors werent "illegal immigrants"

Did they ask the Indians permission? I'm not an authority on the subject, but there is a part of the Declaration of Independence that made me question all of this, It says:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Hopefully, you can shed some light by telling me more about your view on how the colonists were not the equivalent of "illegal immigrants."

I don't have a view either way on this, just a curiosity .

"illegal" is a legality concept. They didnt have a court system.
The use of terminology is what makes it a fallacy.

The Indians waged war against the whites. That should have been enough to say that they weren't exactly welcome. The Cherokees did not have a written language until the early to mid 1800s. But, they still had laws.

Being welcome doesnt matter. Its about legality. Which didnt exist.

 

[Humorme]

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Could you elaborate on that?

Our ancestors werent "illegal immigrants"

Did they ask the Indians permission? I'm not an authority on the subject, but there is a part of the Declaration of Independence that made me question all of this, It says:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Hopefully, you can shed some light by telling me more about your view on how the colonists were not the equivalent of "illegal immigrants."

I don't have a view either way on this, just a curiosity .

"illegal" is a legality concept. They didnt have a court system.
The use of terminology is what makes it a fallacy.

The Indians waged war against the whites. That should have been enough to say that they weren't exactly welcome. The Cherokees did not have a written language until the early to mid 1800s. But, they still had laws.

Being welcome doesnt matter. Its about legality. Which didnt exist.

I'm presupposing that you have proof that some form of "legality" did or did not exist? OR could it be that we simply presumed that since no written law existed (that we knew of) we could understand, we were free to take the land?

BTW, you don't have to get defensive since I believe in Manifest Destiny.

 

[TNHarley]

Our ancestors werent "illegal immigrants"

Did they ask the Indians permission? I'm not an authority on the subject, but there is a part of the Declaration of Independence that made me question all of this, It says:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Hopefully, you can shed some light by telling me more about your view on how the colonists were not the equivalent of "illegal immigrants."

I don't have a view either way on this, just a curiosity .

"illegal" is a legality concept. They didnt have a court system.
The use of terminology is what makes it a fallacy.

The Indians waged war against the whites. That should have been enough to say that they weren't exactly welcome. The Cherokees did not have a written language until the early to mid 1800s. But, they still had laws.

Being welcome doesnt matter. Its about legality. Which didnt exist.

I'm presupposing that you have proof that some form of "legality" did or did not exist? OR could it be that we simply presumed that since no written law existed (that we knew of) we could understand, we were free to take the land?

BTW, you don't have to get defensive since I believe in Manifest Destiny.

They had a verbal (and symbolic) "constitution" they called the great law of peace. Didnt have anything to do with foreigners coming onto their land, though.
Our constitution was actually shaped by their democratic way of life.
Thats the only "laws" i have ever heard of.
I highly doubt the savages had laws anywhere on this continent that dealt with "foreigners" as the concept didnt even exist to them, to my knowledge.
I am not getting defensive, i am having a conversation.

 

[Humorme]

Did they ask the Indians permission? I'm not an authority on the subject, but there is a part of the Declaration of Independence that made me question all of this, It says:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Hopefully, you can shed some light by telling me more about your view on how the colonists were not the equivalent of "illegal immigrants."

I don't have a view either way on this, just a curiosity .

"illegal" is a legality concept. They didnt have a court system.
The use of terminology is what makes it a fallacy.

The Indians waged war against the whites. That should have been enough to say that they weren't exactly welcome. The Cherokees did not have a written language until the early to mid 1800s. But, they still had laws.

Being welcome doesnt matter. Its about legality. Which didnt exist.

I'm presupposing that you have proof that some form of "legality" did or did not exist? OR could it be that we simply presumed that since no written law existed (that we knew of) we could understand, we were free to take the land?

BTW, you don't have to get defensive since I believe in Manifest Destiny.

They had a verbal (and symbolic) "constitution" they called the great law of peace. Didnt have anything to do with foreigners coming onto their land, though.
Our constitution was actually shaped by their democratic way of life.
Thats the only "laws" i have ever heard of.
I highly doubt the savages had laws anywhere on this continent that dealt with "foreigners" as the concept didnt even exist to them, to my knowledge.
I am not getting defensive, i am having a conversation.

I'm just asking questions, not trying to take sides either way.

Personally, I think that the Mayflower Compact set the tone as to why the whites came to this country in the first place and what the end game was about.

So, I'm not trying to be combative here, just realistic on this subject.

I simply do not agree with those who want to erect a wall around America when the better path is to discuss all the things our laws did not anticipate nor address.

When it comes to foreigners, the Constitution is very limited as to the role the federal government has relative to those people. One thing is for sure and cannot be stressed enough: At the federal level, the citizens are under no constitutional obligation to provide foreigners with the privileges and benefits of citizenship. Now, some states might allow the undocumented to vote, hold office, etc. but at the federal level, we are not obligated to do any such act.

There are a myriad of ways to deal with the issue without building walls and creating a government so big that you cannot resist it once ti begins using tyranny and oppression against the people.

 

[TNHarley]

"illegal" is a legality concept. They didnt have a court system.
The use of terminology is what makes it a fallacy.

The Indians waged war against the whites. That should have been enough to say that they weren't exactly welcome. The Cherokees did not have a written language until the early to mid 1800s. But, they still had laws.

Being welcome doesnt matter. Its about legality. Which didnt exist.

I'm presupposing that you have proof that some form of "legality" did or did not exist? OR could it be that we simply presumed that since no written law existed (that we knew of) we could understand, we were free to take the land?

BTW, you don't have to get defensive since I believe in Manifest Destiny.

They had a verbal (and symbolic) "constitution" they called the great law of peace. Didnt have anything to do with foreigners coming onto their land, though.
Our constitution was actually shaped by their democratic way of life.
Thats the only "laws" i have ever heard of.
I highly doubt the savages had laws anywhere on this continent that dealt with "foreigners" as the concept didnt even exist to them, to my knowledge.
I am not getting defensive, i am having a conversation.

I'm just asking questions, not trying to take sides either way.

Personally, I think that the Mayflower Compact set the tone as to why the whites came to this country in the first place and what the end game was about.

So, I'm not trying to be combative here, just realistic on this subject.

I simply do not agree with those who want to erect a wall around America when the better path is to discuss all the things our laws did not anticipate nor address.

When it comes to foreigners, the Constitution is very limited as to the role the federal government has relative to those people. One thing is for sure and cannot be stressed enough: At the federal level, the citizens are under no constitutional obligation to provide foreigners with the privileges and benefits of citizenship. Now, some states might allow the undocumented to vote, hold office, etc. but at the federal level, we are not obligated to do any such act.

There are a myriad of ways to deal with the issue without building walls and creating a government so big that you cannot resist it once ti begins using tyranny and oppression against the people.

a wall is needless IMO. If we cut off incentive, we wouldnt have to worry about anything.

 

[Humorme]

The Indians waged war against the whites. That should have been enough to say that they weren't exactly welcome. The Cherokees did not have a written language until the early to mid 1800s. But, they still had laws.

Being welcome doesnt matter. Its about legality. Which didnt exist.

I'm presupposing that you have proof that some form of "legality" did or did not exist? OR could it be that we simply presumed that since no written law existed (that we knew of) we could understand, we were free to take the land?

BTW, you don't have to get defensive since I believe in Manifest Destiny.

They had a verbal (and symbolic) "constitution" they called the great law of peace. Didnt have anything to do with foreigners coming onto their land, though.
Our constitution was actually shaped by their democratic way of life.
Thats the only "laws" i have ever heard of.
I highly doubt the savages had laws anywhere on this continent that dealt with "foreigners" as the concept didnt even exist to them, to my knowledge.
I am not getting defensive, i am having a conversation.

I'm just asking questions, not trying to take sides either way.

Personally, I think that the Mayflower Compact set the tone as to why the whites came to this country in the first place and what the end game was about.

So, I'm not trying to be combative here, just realistic on this subject.

I simply do not agree with those who want to erect a wall around America when the better path is to discuss all the things our laws did not anticipate nor address.

When it comes to foreigners, the Constitution is very limited as to the role the federal government has relative to those people. One thing is for sure and cannot be stressed enough: At the federal level, the citizens are under no constitutional obligation to provide foreigners with the privileges and benefits of citizenship. Now, some states might allow the undocumented to vote, hold office, etc. but at the federal level, we are not obligated to do any such act.

There are a myriad of ways to deal with the issue without building walls and creating a government so big that you cannot resist it once ti begins using tyranny and oppression against the people.

a wall is needless IMO. If we cut off incentive, we wouldnt have to worry about anything.

IMO those three biggest draws are:

1) Women know if they pop out a child on U.S. soil, it becomes a citizen and with that many benefits and privileges follow (welfare, food stamps, etc.)

2) The free public education

3) The preference they get in jobs (whether with or without papers)

 

[Unkotare]

What "internal war"?

The only thing that pisses the right off enough to push themselves away from their computers is this unhealthy obsession they have with so - called "illegal aliens." America leads the world in the number of people on SSRIs, but that's not a problem (even with over half of those people not meeting the medical standards to be prescribed the drug.) But, that's not a problem - even though virtually mass shooter is on those drugs.

Over 80 percent of the world's oipoids are consumed by Americans.

Foreign companies have been gobbling up American businesses for years and there is never a problem with that:

The Foreign Companies That Are Buying Up America

Over 10 percent of Americans admit that they use illegal drugs:

Ten percent of Americans admit illegal drug use

16.7 percent of Americans are on legal anti-depressants (whites at a ratio of 2 to 1 over non-whites.)

One in 6 Americans take antidepressants, other psychiatric drugs

It's all cool. But , somebody saw a Hispanic cut their neighbor's lawn and the sky is falling. time to forfeit your Rights, scrap the Constitution, and accept ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

If there is to be any internal war in this country, it will be over immigration. Anti-immigrants are the only people who cannot function on a normal level. So, if all they're going to do is chant their standard mantra (which has been a losing proposition for them thus far), then we will become a NEW WORLD ORDER society.

I'm betting they fold up like an accordion after the next presidential election.

Boat load of red herrings. ^^^^^^

They are simple facts about the condition of America. While the decent people should be up in arms (no pun intended), they accept the demise of their nation without so much as a whimper.

So, when this nutty wall idea does not produce the results the anti-immigrant lobby seeks, they are stuck with tyranny and oppression - a condition that they and they alone created with their Constitution Free Zone, National ID / REAL ID Act, etc.

Even IF the wall is built, like the Berlin Wall, whatever goes up must come down. The right would be well advised to rethink their solutions and do things that would produce an outcome they can live with without taking a giant shit on the Freedoms and Liberties the Constitution guarantees to us.

You’re all over the place. What exactly is it you understand the topic of this thread to be?

The topic of the thread is that some guy wrote an article about the demise of the nation - state. In short, there will be no borders in the future.

That brings out the people who take the extreme position that they support the concept of borders to the point that they will forfeit every constitutional Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for we, the people.

So, what do you think this is all about?

So, the thread is not about a wall, but you want it to be. How would any such wall “forfeit every Constitutional liberty “?

 

[Humorme]

The only thing that pisses the right off enough to push themselves away from their computers is this unhealthy obsession they have with so - called "illegal aliens." America leads the world in the number of people on SSRIs, but that's not a problem (even with over half of those people not meeting the medical standards to be prescribed the drug.) But, that's not a problem - even though virtually mass shooter is on those drugs.

Over 80 percent of the world's oipoids are consumed by Americans.

Foreign companies have been gobbling up American businesses for years and there is never a problem with that:

The Foreign Companies That Are Buying Up America

Over 10 percent of Americans admit that they use illegal drugs:

Ten percent of Americans admit illegal drug use

16.7 percent of Americans are on legal anti-depressants (whites at a ratio of 2 to 1 over non-whites.)

One in 6 Americans take antidepressants, other psychiatric drugs

It's all cool. But , somebody saw a Hispanic cut their neighbor's lawn and the sky is falling. time to forfeit your Rights, scrap the Constitution, and accept ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

If there is to be any internal war in this country, it will be over immigration. Anti-immigrants are the only people who cannot function on a normal level. So, if all they're going to do is chant their standard mantra (which has been a losing proposition for them thus far), then we will become a NEW WORLD ORDER society.

I'm betting they fold up like an accordion after the next presidential election.

Boat load of red herrings. ^^^^^^

They are simple facts about the condition of America. While the decent people should be up in arms (no pun intended), they accept the demise of their nation without so much as a whimper.

So, when this nutty wall idea does not produce the results the anti-immigrant lobby seeks, they are stuck with tyranny and oppression - a condition that they and they alone created with their Constitution Free Zone, National ID / REAL ID Act, etc.

Even IF the wall is built, like the Berlin Wall, whatever goes up must come down. The right would be well advised to rethink their solutions and do things that would produce an outcome they can live with without taking a giant shit on the Freedoms and Liberties the Constitution guarantees to us.

You’re all over the place. What exactly is it you understand the topic of this thread to be?

The topic of the thread is that some guy wrote an article about the demise of the nation - state. In short, there will be no borders in the future.

That brings out the people who take the extreme position that they support the concept of borders to the point that they will forfeit every constitutional Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for we, the people.

So, what do you think this is all about?

So, the thread is not about a wall, but you want it to be. How would any such wall “forfeit every Constitutional liberty “?

This isn't our first dance on this subject. So, why discuss it again? Let's look at SOME of the obvious:

1) The Constitution Free Zone was created to aid in border enforcement:








2) Everyone has to bear in mind that the current anti-immigrant effort began over the Rights of private property owners. Americans. The question was, does an American property owner have a Right to protect their property?

Well, the border patrol types got their day in court, the ruling did NOT favor Americans and so the handpicked socialists who control the anti-immigrant effort became wannabe border patrol types. Meanwhile, a federal court decided that Americans stopping foreigners from trespassing over private property are violating the foreigners "civil rights." The anti-immigrant lobby was too stubborn,stupid and then lazy to appeal the court decision and move forward. And so private property Rights were set back at least another fifty years

3) It was the anti-immigrant lobby that wanted the National ID / REAL ID Act that forces people to carry around National ID, use the SSN as identification - both of which impacted the 4th and 16th Amendments.

BTW, the 16th Amendment was on its way out until the right saved that plank straight out of the Communist Manifesto by introducing a National ID system that relies on the SSN as a "unique identifier." That alone gave the government the pretext it needed to keep the SSN and end the efforts that tax patriots were using to defeat the 16th Amendment ... and they were doing so good that my own Congressman introduced legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment and get rid of the IRS.

Oh, we've been down this road many times, but we do this dance now and again. That's only my top 3 of twenty ways the effort to militarize the border / put up a wall / infringe on property Rights versus leaving the border alone and open need a full discussion.

 

[Unkotare]

Boat load of red herrings. ^^^^^^

They are simple facts about the condition of America. While the decent people should be up in arms (no pun intended), they accept the demise of their nation without so much as a whimper.

So, when this nutty wall idea does not produce the results the anti-immigrant lobby seeks, they are stuck with tyranny and oppression - a condition that they and they alone created with their Constitution Free Zone, National ID / REAL ID Act, etc.

Even IF the wall is built, like the Berlin Wall, whatever goes up must come down. The right would be well advised to rethink their solutions and do things that would produce an outcome they can live with without taking a giant shit on the Freedoms and Liberties the Constitution guarantees to us.

You’re all over the place. What exactly is it you understand the topic of this thread to be?

The topic of the thread is that some guy wrote an article about the demise of the nation - state. In short, there will be no borders in the future.

That brings out the people who take the extreme position that they support the concept of borders to the point that they will forfeit every constitutional Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for we, the people.

So, what do you think this is all about?

So, the thread is not about a wall, but you want it to be. How would any such wall “forfeit every Constitutional liberty “?

This isn't our first dance on this subject. So, why discuss it again? Let's look at SOME of the obvious:

1) The Constitution Free Zone was created to aid in border enforcement:








2) Everyone has to bear in mind that the current anti-immigrant effort began over the Rights of private property owners. Americans. The question was, does an American property owner have a Right to protect their property?

Well, the border patrol types got their day in court, the ruling did NOT favor Americans and so the handpicked socialists who control the anti-immigrant effort became wannabe border patrol types. Meanwhile, a federal court decided that Americans stopping foreigners from trespassing over private property are violating the foreigners "civil rights." The anti-immigrant lobby was too stubborn,stupid and then lazy to appeal the court decision and move forward. And so private property Rights were set back at least another fifty years

3) It was the anti-immigrant lobby that wanted the National ID / REAL ID Act that forces people to carry around National ID, use the SSN as identification - both of which impacted the 4th and 16th Amendments.

BTW, the 16th Amendment was on its way out until the right saved that plank straight out of the Communist Manifesto by introducing a National ID system that relies on the SSN as a "unique identifier." That alone gave the government the pretext it needed to keep the SSN and end the efforts that tax patriots were using to defeat the 16th Amendment ... and they were doing so good that my own Congressman introduced legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment and get rid of the IRS.

Oh, we've been down this road many times, but we do this dance now and again. That's only my top 3 of twenty ways the effort to militarize the border / put up a wall / infringe on property Rights versus leaving the border alone and open need a full discussion.

Editorializing is not objective.

 

[Humorme]

They are simple facts about the condition of America. While the decent people should be up in arms (no pun intended), they accept the demise of their nation without so much as a whimper.

So, when this nutty wall idea does not produce the results the anti-immigrant lobby seeks, they are stuck with tyranny and oppression - a condition that they and they alone created with their Constitution Free Zone, National ID / REAL ID Act, etc.

Even IF the wall is built, like the Berlin Wall, whatever goes up must come down. The right would be well advised to rethink their solutions and do things that would produce an outcome they can live with without taking a giant shit on the Freedoms and Liberties the Constitution guarantees to us.

You’re all over the place. What exactly is it you understand the topic of this thread to be?

The topic of the thread is that some guy wrote an article about the demise of the nation - state. In short, there will be no borders in the future.

That brings out the people who take the extreme position that they support the concept of borders to the point that they will forfeit every constitutional Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for we, the people.

So, what do you think this is all about?

So, the thread is not about a wall, but you want it to be. How would any such wall “forfeit every Constitutional liberty “?

This isn't our first dance on this subject. So, why discuss it again? Let's look at SOME of the obvious:

1) The Constitution Free Zone was created to aid in border enforcement:








2) Everyone has to bear in mind that the current anti-immigrant effort began over the Rights of private property owners. Americans. The question was, does an American property owner have a Right to protect their property?

Well, the border patrol types got their day in court, the ruling did NOT favor Americans and so the handpicked socialists who control the anti-immigrant effort became wannabe border patrol types. Meanwhile, a federal court decided that Americans stopping foreigners from trespassing over private property are violating the foreigners "civil rights." The anti-immigrant lobby was too stubborn,stupid and then lazy to appeal the court decision and move forward. And so private property Rights were set back at least another fifty years

3) It was the anti-immigrant lobby that wanted the National ID / REAL ID Act that forces people to carry around National ID, use the SSN as identification - both of which impacted the 4th and 16th Amendments.

BTW, the 16th Amendment was on its way out until the right saved that plank straight out of the Communist Manifesto by introducing a National ID system that relies on the SSN as a "unique identifier." That alone gave the government the pretext it needed to keep the SSN and end the efforts that tax patriots were using to defeat the 16th Amendment ... and they were doing so good that my own Congressman introduced legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment and get rid of the IRS.

Oh, we've been down this road many times, but we do this dance now and again. That's only my top 3 of twenty ways the effort to militarize the border / put up a wall / infringe on property Rights versus leaving the border alone and open need a full discussion.

Editorializing is not objective.

You asked how. Now you want to criticize??? Objective or not, I'm telling you the facts.

 

[Unkotare]

You’re all over the place. What exactly is it you understand the topic of this thread to be?

The topic of the thread is that some guy wrote an article about the demise of the nation - state. In short, there will be no borders in the future.

That brings out the people who take the extreme position that they support the concept of borders to the point that they will forfeit every constitutional Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for we, the people.

So, what do you think this is all about?

So, the thread is not about a wall, but you want it to be. How would any such wall “forfeit every Constitutional liberty “?

This isn't our first dance on this subject. So, why discuss it again? Let's look at SOME of the obvious:

1) The Constitution Free Zone was created to aid in border enforcement:








2) Everyone has to bear in mind that the current anti-immigrant effort began over the Rights of private property owners. Americans. The question was, does an American property owner have a Right to protect their property?

Well, the border patrol types got their day in court, the ruling did NOT favor Americans and so the handpicked socialists who control the anti-immigrant effort became wannabe border patrol types. Meanwhile, a federal court decided that Americans stopping foreigners from trespassing over private property are violating the foreigners "civil rights." The anti-immigrant lobby was too stubborn,stupid and then lazy to appeal the court decision and move forward. And so private property Rights were set back at least another fifty years

3) It was the anti-immigrant lobby that wanted the National ID / REAL ID Act that forces people to carry around National ID, use the SSN as identification - both of which impacted the 4th and 16th Amendments.

BTW, the 16th Amendment was on its way out until the right saved that plank straight out of the Communist Manifesto by introducing a National ID system that relies on the SSN as a "unique identifier." That alone gave the government the pretext it needed to keep the SSN and end the efforts that tax patriots were using to defeat the 16th Amendment ... and they were doing so good that my own Congressman introduced legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment and get rid of the IRS.

Oh, we've been down this road many times, but we do this dance now and again. That's only my top 3 of twenty ways the effort to militarize the border / put up a wall / infringe on property Rights versus leaving the border alone and open need a full discussion.

Editorializing is not objective.

You asked how. Now you want to criticize??? Objective or not, I'm telling you the facts.

No, you are not.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Open Orders are probably how your ancestors got here.

Do you guys ever get tired of sounding like morons?
Apparently not since that fallacy is about 20 years old..

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Could you elaborate on that?

Our ancestors werent "illegal immigrants"

Did they ask the Indians permission? I'm not an authority on the subject, but there is a part of the Declaration of Independence that made me question all of this, It says:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Hopefully, you can shed some light by telling me more about your view on how the colonists were not the equivalent of "illegal immigrants."

I don't have a view either way on this, just a curiosity .

There was no country. There was no sense of a border. There was no central government. So there was no possibility of illegal immigrants. They were settlers. If you imagine that the conditions of 250 years ago and today are similar, what you are really postulating is that there is no United States. No property rights, no government. These aren't illegal immigrants. These are actually COLONISTS of a foreign government, just like the colonists that came here and settled in Jamestown.

Thank you for FINALLY agreeing that what we are facing is more in line with colonization than immigration.

Since we are being colonized you know that the foreign colonists have the right of might. They can come to your home, throw you and your family out and take up residence since you don't own it and all. You have to agree that this is the right thing to do.

 

[Humorme]

The topic of the thread is that some guy wrote an article about the demise of the nation - state. In short, there will be no borders in the future.

That brings out the people who take the extreme position that they support the concept of borders to the point that they will forfeit every constitutional Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for we, the people.

So, what do you think this is all about?

So, the thread is not about a wall, but you want it to be. How would any such wall “forfeit every Constitutional liberty “?

This isn't our first dance on this subject. So, why discuss it again? Let's look at SOME of the obvious:

1) The Constitution Free Zone was created to aid in border enforcement:








2) Everyone has to bear in mind that the current anti-immigrant effort began over the Rights of private property owners. Americans. The question was, does an American property owner have a Right to protect their property?

Well, the border patrol types got their day in court, the ruling did NOT favor Americans and so the handpicked socialists who control the anti-immigrant effort became wannabe border patrol types. Meanwhile, a federal court decided that Americans stopping foreigners from trespassing over private property are violating the foreigners "civil rights." The anti-immigrant lobby was too stubborn,stupid and then lazy to appeal the court decision and move forward. And so private property Rights were set back at least another fifty years

3) It was the anti-immigrant lobby that wanted the National ID / REAL ID Act that forces people to carry around National ID, use the SSN as identification - both of which impacted the 4th and 16th Amendments.

BTW, the 16th Amendment was on its way out until the right saved that plank straight out of the Communist Manifesto by introducing a National ID system that relies on the SSN as a "unique identifier." That alone gave the government the pretext it needed to keep the SSN and end the efforts that tax patriots were using to defeat the 16th Amendment ... and they were doing so good that my own Congressman introduced legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment and get rid of the IRS.

Oh, we've been down this road many times, but we do this dance now and again. That's only my top 3 of twenty ways the effort to militarize the border / put up a wall / infringe on property Rights versus leaving the border alone and open need a full discussion.

Editorializing is not objective.

You asked how. Now you want to criticize??? Objective or not, I'm telling you the facts.

No, you are not.

Don't start being childish because you don't like the facts. They are available for anyone with a shoe size bigger than their IQ to access.