Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[OKTexas]

What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello. Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints. Things that are verifiable. Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like "Border walls". Bully.

What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.

.

Love ya'all. Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so much a liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with" thing. Sanctuary cities? Seems that was a overriding Constitutional issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state ignore federal immigration laws? I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.

I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.

.

Um, well the rest of us have to worry about unsanctioned legitimizing of illegal aliens. Giving them the vote. The motor voter thing, the whole nine yards. Everything about giving illegal aliens special rights. But they can't follow the same immigration laws everyone else does. Sanctuary cities for Albanians? Or Hungarians? Just Mexicans Because, that's fair. Just Mexicans. Mexicans are so special they transcend the Constitution. And when you notice something broken about that? Hate and xenophobia is what they say.

No, they'll try to protect illegals where ever they're form or how they got here. We have illegals from virtually every country in the world.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Yep, they work for us, and we're obligated to give them the tools required to do the job we ask them to do in an effective and safe manner. We already have walls and barriers on roughly 1/3rd of the border. Now you cry babies claim adding an additional 10% will somehow restrict our liberties and would be IMMORAL. REALLY?? That seems to fly in the face of logic.

.

Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants. Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally. The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.

200 miles wont solve the problem, but 1400 miles will. You're attacking a "solution" that no one has proposed. Border crossing is 60% of the problem, but you're saying solving 60% of the problem is a waste of time. You're just an open borders douchebag, or course, who doesn't want to solve the problem.

Visa overstays is another problem that can easily be solved, but douchebags like you have obstructed the solution to that problem as well.

It appears the one genuine obstacle to get real border security is douchebags like you.

The difference between border crossers and VISA overstays is the VISA people have been vetted. The people jumping our border could have Lord knows what kind of diseases, Lord knows what minimal education, and Lord knows what kind of criminal record. I'm sure many of them don't even know a word of English.

Therefore border crossers have to be a priority over VISA overstays because it's not just about them being here illegally, it's more about our safety and culture.

Ray, You never responded to posts 3475 and 3476. So, I will try yet again. Here is part III - a continuation to see if you will keep your word:

Part III


I’m saving my best stuff for last, but I wanted to continue on answering Ray (who is too ashamed to respond to his request that I tell him what Liberties are lost with the wall.


If you throw a rock into a still pond, it makes a lot of ripples. One right wing book I read called Unintended Consequences by John Ross. It is a fictional novel based upon current laws and how they could be used in an anti-gun scenario. It demonstrates how one action may impact another.

When I was a teen, I spoke out publicly and was then recruited by the Young Republicans Club and the John Birch Society not to mention other organizations and I became hard core right. Since then, my major theme has not changed; the movement has. Those who want a wall around the southern border refuse to answer a few simple questions:

If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? They keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position.

Unable to do that they call me a lot of names that they cannot back up. But, I want to remind them of a few things:

If you go back to the mid to late 1990s the John Birch Society, Concern Conservative Citizens Society, Young Republicans Club, etc. were AGAINST the New World Order, One World Government, the abolition of jurisdictions,the Constitution Free Zone, militarized police, National ID, surveillance society, the unconstitutional 14th and 16th Amendments (neither passing constitutional muster), and the assaults on religion. They fought gun control, eminent domain abuses, and warrant less search and seizures. Probably, the last great effort to gain national attention was Alex Jones video POLICE STATE 2000 (put out in the late 1980s) and a book called Operation Vampire Killer 2000 (written in the early 1990s by Jack McLamb of Police Against the New World Order.)

Operation Vampire Killer 2000 - The Lawful Path


If one were to return to that era, the uninformed build the wall guys, would swear and be damned the conservatives were the liberals. Well, the right adopted the left’s solutions:



Meanwhile, the left has jumped on the privacy bandwagon, warning Americans about the Constitution Free Zone:






Reminds me of the old Johnny Cash song The One on the Right is on the Left.

Anyway, with the wall up, it will immediately affect your Liberties in about a dozen ways. For this installment, I’ll list three:


1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights

2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb

3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.


I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.

Damn, you're such a silly child. No constitutional amendment, beyond the first 10, which emphasized constitutional principles, would pass constitutional muster until they are ratified by the States. That's why we do amendments and the whole point of the Article 5 process.

Also this myth of Constitution free zones is a great conspiracy theory, but it doesn't reflect reality. Otherwise we could just heard illegals into the Rio Grand and see if they can swim.

So now we know you're just another conspiracy nut, who I doubt will be around these forums very long.

.

Cases that have been courts are not theories.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Irrelevant. Public opinion went against the wall after Trump was elected.

You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.

In his first speech announcing his candidacy he attached the Muslims, the Chinese, Mexicans, Central and South Americans. In his next speech he declared war on the media. He missed the Blacks but that was soon to follow:

From his first speech he said, "They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

When he threw his hat in the ring he essential declared war on all minorities aligning himself with the white majority. I'm sure white supremacists across the country felt they finally had a candidate they could support.

If you think the phony race thing still works, think again. It doesn't have anything to do with race.

You are lying. It's ONE of your laundry list reasons for being for the wall

Yes, it is a concern of mine, but not necessarily Trump's.

Can you tell me in what country would people welcome a government trying to make them a minority in their own country other than stupid white liberals?

Trump is playing you. America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion. Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, only whites could be citizens by federal law. In virtually all the colonies, only whites could vote and / or hold public office and that spilled over into state constitutions.

It's not like this stuff is sinful or something we should be ashamed of. Hell, most of you guys argue what China does (92.5 percent of them are of one race.) So why the deflections? Why the dishonesty? Yo cannot preserve your culture without protecting your race. Why do you think the black liberals are erasing your history?

 

[MaryL]

What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello. Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints. Things that are verifiable. Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like "Border walls". Bully.

What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.

.

Love ya'all. Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so much a liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with" thing. Sanctuary cities? Seems that was a overriding Constitutional issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state ignore federal immigration laws? I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.

I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.

.

Where I live (Denver Colorado) It was NEVER ever put up to a vote. Our wonderful magnificent plutocrats sort of made this a sanctuary city/state. Vote as in, lets' say, DEMOCRACY? That never happened. Sanctuary city for illegal was mandated, but sure the hell not by the will of working class plebeans.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, I don't know if adding a couple hundred miles of wall will seriously limit anyone's liberties but it's highly unlike to seriously reduce the number of illegal immigrants. Most of the border will still be unfenced and we are doing nothing to stop the flow coming through ports of entry nor dealing with the fact that most illegal immigrants enter legally. The wall is basically a waste of money and worse yet it deflects the nation's attention away other major problems.

200 miles wont solve the problem, but 1400 miles will. You're attacking a "solution" that no one has proposed. Border crossing is 60% of the problem, but you're saying solving 60% of the problem is a waste of time. You're just an open borders douchebag, or course, who doesn't want to solve the problem.

Visa overstays is another problem that can easily be solved, but douchebags like you have obstructed the solution to that problem as well.

It appears the one genuine obstacle to get real border security is douchebags like you.

The difference between border crossers and VISA overstays is the VISA people have been vetted. The people jumping our border could have Lord knows what kind of diseases, Lord knows what minimal education, and Lord knows what kind of criminal record. I'm sure many of them don't even know a word of English.

Therefore border crossers have to be a priority over VISA overstays because it's not just about them being here illegally, it's more about our safety and culture.

Ray, You never responded to posts 3475 and 3476. So, I will try yet again. Here is part III - a continuation to see if you will keep your word:

Part III


I’m saving my best stuff for last, but I wanted to continue on answering Ray (who is too ashamed to respond to his request that I tell him what Liberties are lost with the wall.


If you throw a rock into a still pond, it makes a lot of ripples. One right wing book I read called Unintended Consequences by John Ross. It is a fictional novel based upon current laws and how they could be used in an anti-gun scenario. It demonstrates how one action may impact another.

When I was a teen, I spoke out publicly and was then recruited by the Young Republicans Club and the John Birch Society not to mention other organizations and I became hard core right. Since then, my major theme has not changed; the movement has. Those who want a wall around the southern border refuse to answer a few simple questions:

If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? They keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position.

Unable to do that they call me a lot of names that they cannot back up. But, I want to remind them of a few things:

If you go back to the mid to late 1990s the John Birch Society, Concern Conservative Citizens Society, Young Republicans Club, etc. were AGAINST the New World Order, One World Government, the abolition of jurisdictions,the Constitution Free Zone, militarized police, National ID, surveillance society, the unconstitutional 14th and 16th Amendments (neither passing constitutional muster), and the assaults on religion. They fought gun control, eminent domain abuses, and warrant less search and seizures. Probably, the last great effort to gain national attention was Alex Jones video POLICE STATE 2000 (put out in the late 1980s) and a book called Operation Vampire Killer 2000 (written in the early 1990s by Jack McLamb of Police Against the New World Order.)

Operation Vampire Killer 2000 - The Lawful Path


If one were to return to that era, the uninformed build the wall guys, would swear and be damned the conservatives were the liberals. Well, the right adopted the left’s solutions:



Meanwhile, the left has jumped on the privacy bandwagon, warning Americans about the Constitution Free Zone:






Reminds me of the old Johnny Cash song The One on the Right is on the Left.

Anyway, with the wall up, it will immediately affect your Liberties in about a dozen ways. For this installment, I’ll list three:


1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights

2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb

3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.


I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.

Damn, you're such a silly child. No constitutional amendment, beyond the first 10, which emphasized constitutional principles, would pass constitutional muster until they are ratified by the States. That's why we do amendments and the whole point of the Article 5 process.

Also this myth of Constitution free zones is a great conspiracy theory, but it doesn't reflect reality. Otherwise we could just heard illegals into the Rio Grand and see if they can swim.

So now we know you're just another conspiracy nut, who I doubt will be around these forums very long.

.

Cases that have been courts are not theories.

Terry v. Ohio. Didn't even have to look it up.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You, of course, mean the media that was against Trump breathing from the moment he tossed his hat in the ring.

In his first speech announcing his candidacy he attached the Muslims, the Chinese, Mexicans, Central and South Americans. In his next speech he declared war on the media. He missed the Blacks but that was soon to follow:

From his first speech he said, "They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

When he threw his hat in the ring he essential declared war on all minorities aligning himself with the white majority. I'm sure white supremacists across the country felt they finally had a candidate they could support.

If you think the phony race thing still works, think again. It doesn't have anything to do with race.

You are lying. It's ONE of your laundry list reasons for being for the wall

Yes, it is a concern of mine, but not necessarily Trump's.

Can you tell me in what country would people welcome a government trying to make them a minority in their own country other than stupid white liberals?

Trump is playing you. America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion. Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, only whites could be citizens by federal law. In virtually all the colonies, only whites could vote and / or hold public office and that spilled over into state constitutions.

It's not like this stuff is sinful or something we should be ashamed of. Hell, most of you guys argue what China does (92.5 percent of them are of one race.) So why the deflections? Why the dishonesty? Yo cannot preserve your culture without protecting your race. Why do you think the black liberals are erasing your history?

Who said anything about black liberals?

The plot behind the Democrat party is to make whites a minority in this country for political power. Why do you suppose they fight for their Sanctuary cities and now states? Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law from becoming law; a law that may have saved the life of that police officer in California? Why do you suppose they are willing to shutdown the government over a measly 5 billion dollars which is less than what we spend on food stamps in one month? Why do you suppose they give welcome and comfort to illegals by giving them drivers licenses and sending their kids to our schools?

It's pretty obvious what's going on here, and it's not because Democrats are so compassionate. I think your next quest should be to look for the man behind the curtain.

 

[Flopper]

Border agents appeared on TV and explicitly stated they wanted a wall because it would help them. This is good enough for me. I thank them for their dangerous service.

If you're referring to Trump's infomercial at the White House, those agents were hand picked by the Customs director.

If you really want to know what agents think then you need to read the report prepared by Homeland Security in which they did a survey of hundreds of agents asking them for solutions to the illegal immigration problem. Not surprisingly, only a handful even mention a barrier wall as a solution. Furthermore, Homeland Security has never put a wall in their budget request before Trump.

You're a liar, they were there to speak to the president, once the briefing was over he told them we need to take this to the American people. What occurred in the briefing room was done on the spur of the moment. That's why the press only got a 5 minute warning of the briefing.

.

Not likely. They gathered up some border agents that thought building a wall was a good idea and flew them to Washington. So you really think they would send agents that opposed building the wall to meet with the president.

I've got a link, how about you? It's even from one of your commie news outlets, so you'll love the bias.

Trump pushes border wall in surprise media briefing, but takes no questions

.

Interesting link. 3 federal employees making a political pitch before the camera for Trump's border wall and support for border agents working without pay, a pretty clear violation of the 1939 law that forbids federal employees from engaging in such activity.

Since they are on the executive council of the union and claim to be speaking for the members, there're dragging the whole 12,000 member union into it. I have to wonder what the unions position will be when their members have gone without pay for a couple of months. Customs inspectors have already made it clear that Judd does not speak for them.

Even more interesting is the union itself has long questioned spending on border walls. Even after Trump took office, in March 2017 the union put out a response to his proposed border spending, delicately questioning the need for spending on walls. I would say members are far from united on the need for the wall and even less united when it comes to working without pay. We'll see how they feel after they've gone without pay for a couple of months.
Steller column: Border agents' union gambles with interests of members, nation

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You never answered me. Do you think they are actors?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? They keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position.

Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't. Rights however are granted to people that are in our country. If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights. If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights. But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights. It's something I think you're confused about.

A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government. Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.

1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights

A wall won't change any of that. If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall. Therefore your claim is moot.

2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb

So WTF does that have to do with the wall? And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....

3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.

A wall does that? How? I know nothing about any national ID card. I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.

I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.

Again, a wall has nothing to do with that. These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.

I changed my opinion about you. You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook. But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????

Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them. A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen. A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers. It's simply an inanimate object.

1) I am not arguing inalienable rights.

2) You wrote: " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."

In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

In other words what I create is MINE and I don't owe you a job to benefit you - it's my job to give. This is THE fatal flaw of your argument.

3) I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone. IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel. So, they do it in small doses. YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.

As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)

4) I don't do theories. I live in the real world. In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty. You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country." Those precedents are a dual edged sword.

Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:

"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."

So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you. You don't have a very sound strategy. All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer. You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border. All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.

The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.

You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me. In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself. We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper. I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be one on one - no holds barred.

 

[OKTexas]

Border agents appeared on TV and explicitly stated they wanted a wall because it would help them. This is good enough for me. I thank them for their dangerous service.

If you're referring to Trump's infomercial at the White House, those agents were hand picked by the Customs director.

If you really want to know what agents think then you need to read the report prepared by Homeland Security in which they did a survey of hundreds of agents asking them for solutions to the illegal immigration problem. Not surprisingly, only a handful even mention a barrier wall as a solution. Furthermore, Homeland Security has never put a wall in their budget request before Trump.

You're a liar, they were there to speak to the president, once the briefing was over he told them we need to take this to the American people. What occurred in the briefing room was done on the spur of the moment. That's why the press only got a 5 minute warning of the briefing.

.

Not likely. They gathered up some border agents that thought building a wall was a good idea and flew them to Washington. So you really think they would send agents that opposed building the wall to meet with the president.

I've got a link, how about you? It's even from one of your commie news outlets, so you'll love the bias.

Trump pushes border wall in surprise media briefing, but takes no questions

.

Interesting link. 3 federal employees making a political pitch before the camera for Trump's border wall and support for border agents working without pay, a pretty clear violation of the 1939 law that forbids federal employees from engaging in such activity.

Since they are on the executive council of the union and claim to be speaking for the members, there're dragging the whole 12,000 member union into it. I have to wonder what the unions position will be when their members have gone without pay for a couple of months. Customs inspectors have already made it clear that Judd does not speak for them.

Even more interesting is the union itself has long questioned spending on border walls. Even after Trump took office, in March 2017 the union put out a response to his proposed border spending, delicately questioning the need for spending on walls. I would say members are far from united on the need for the wall and even less united when it comes to working without pay. We'll see how they feel after they've gone without pay for a couple of months.
Steller column: Border agents' union gambles with interests of members, nation

Border patrol agents telling the public what tools they feel they need is not a political activity. And the 2017 statements were when the MSM was blasting to the world that Trump planned to build a wall form sea to shining sea. After they actually got together and talked about needed requirements, that changed.

.

 

[Indeependent]

If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? They keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position.

Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't. Rights however are granted to people that are in our country. If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights. If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights. But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights. It's something I think you're confused about.

A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government. Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.

1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights

A wall won't change any of that. If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall. Therefore your claim is moot.

2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb

So WTF does that have to do with the wall? And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....

3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.

A wall does that? How? I know nothing about any national ID card. I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.

I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.

Again, a wall has nothing to do with that. These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.

I changed my opinion about you. You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook. But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????

Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them. A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen. A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers. It's simply an inanimate object.

1) I am not arguing inalienable rights.

2) You wrote: " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."

In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

3) I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone. IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel. So, they do it in small doses. YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.

As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)

4) I don't do theories. I live in the real world. In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty. You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country." Those precedents are a dual edged sword.

Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:

"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."

So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you. You don't have a very sound strategy. All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer. You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border. All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.

The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.

You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me. In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself. We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper. I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be one on one - no holds barred.

So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello. Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints. Things that are verifiable. Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like "Border walls". Bully.

What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.

.

Love ya'all. Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so much a liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with" thing. Sanctuary cities? Seems that was a overriding Constitutional issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state ignore federal immigration laws? I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.

I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.

.

Where I live (Denver Colorado) It was NEVER ever put up to a vote. Our wonderful magnificent plutocrats sort of made this a sanctuary city/state. Vote as in, lets' say, DEMOCRACY? That never happened. Sanctuary city for illegal was mandated, but sure the hell not by the will of working class plebeans.

Do you live in a Democracy or a Republic? In the last election did you vote the plutocrats (sic) out of office?

 

[Indeependent]

What is so funny about my post? I am feeling like Elvis Costello. Peace love & understanding. So, If ya' all want to keep the wankers out, don't hire them! Make them Prove their national identity with state sanctioned national identity card linked to their, DNA, Fingerprints. Things that are verifiable. Might be cheaper and more effective than building a wall on the southern border. But let's keep up cheap petty appearances, like "Border walls". Bully.

What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.

.

Love ya'all. Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so much a liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with" thing. Sanctuary cities? Seems that was a overriding Constitutional issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state ignore federal immigration laws? I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.

I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.

.

Where I live (Denver Colorado) It was NEVER ever put up to a vote. Our wonderful magnificent plutocrats sort of made this a sanctuary city/state. Vote as in, lets' say, DEMOCRACY? That never happened. Sanctuary city for illegal was mandated, but sure the hell not by the will of working class plebeans.

Do you live in a Democracy or a Republic? In the last election did you vote the plutocrats (sic) out of office?

Kind of hard to do when there were no non-plutocrats running.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? They keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position.

Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't. Rights however are granted to people that are in our country. If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights. If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights. But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights. It's something I think you're confused about.

A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government. Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.

1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights

A wall won't change any of that. If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall. Therefore your claim is moot.

2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb

So WTF does that have to do with the wall? And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....

3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.

A wall does that? How? I know nothing about any national ID card. I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.

I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.

Again, a wall has nothing to do with that. These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.

I changed my opinion about you. You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook. But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????

Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them. A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen. A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers. It's simply an inanimate object.

1) I am not arguing inalienable rights.

2) You wrote: " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."

In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

3) I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone. IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel. So, they do it in small doses. YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.

As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)

4) I don't do theories. I live in the real world. In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty. You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country." Those precedents are a dual edged sword.

Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:

"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."

So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you. You don't have a very sound strategy. All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer. You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border. All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.

The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.

You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me. In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself. We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper. I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be one on one - no holds barred.

So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.

You are dishonest and probably amoral. Since I have so specified at least a dozen times that it is the function of the government to protect us - it just should not serve as a tool to protect you from your own actions. As for the rest, even danielpalos has a point once each year. He's already answered this lame ass allegation from you and others. You need some new material.

Since I cannot "debate" a dozen people as the delusional call these exchanges, I'm sure you will wait your turn. I'm having a discussion with Ray, so save your lies and when we're on equal footing, I'll take you on.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

What's so funny, you said walls don't word in-spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The fact is they do work, that's why the border patrol is asking for more. If you don't like how it looks, do an about face, problem solved.

.

Love ya'all. Good fences make for good neighbors. We have liberal assholes that give illegal aliens freebies . Sanctuary cities. Now, nobody got to vote on whether or not their home town became a sanctuary city, that was so much a liberal cadre " They just presumed they could get away with" thing. Sanctuary cities? Seems that was a overriding Constitutional issue people ignore. Who got to vote to give their city / state ignore federal immigration laws? I didn't, did any of you? Was it on a ballot anywhere? Because, that a pretty significant issue. Ignoring the will of the people and constitutional laws.

I don't have to worry about sanctuary cities in my State, the State outlawed them and require State sanctioned law enforcement agencies (which are all of them) to cooperate with immigration officials.

.

Where I live (Denver Colorado) It was NEVER ever put up to a vote. Our wonderful magnificent plutocrats sort of made this a sanctuary city/state. Vote as in, lets' say, DEMOCRACY? That never happened. Sanctuary city for illegal was mandated, but sure the hell not by the will of working class plebeans.

Do you live in a Democracy or a Republic? In the last election did you vote the plutocrats (sic) out of office?

Kind of hard to do when there were no non-plutocrats running.

You could have gone and helped out.... unless everyone there is a plutocrat - and that would mean, Democratically, you lose.

BTW, I do not support Democracy in any way, shape, fashion, or form. I don't support in ideology, name or political ideology. I don't even like the word.

 

[MaryL]

When LIBERALS LOVE TO CLAIM SOMETHING is "unconstitutional", that cuts both ways. Sanctuary cities ? Nobody got to vote on whether or not they want sanctuary cities. That seems so exceptional so Unconstitutional. Nobody go to vote on this issue, it's mandated, it's dictated by the moral minority. by who's power, even? Sanctuary cities? I can't speak for the majority, but I suspect most of us rather want federal immigration laws enforced, it won't hurt us, and it might just help.

 

[Flopper]

In his first speech announcing his candidacy he attached the Muslims, the Chinese, Mexicans, Central and South Americans. In his next speech he declared war on the media. He missed the Blacks but that was soon to follow:

From his first speech he said, "They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

When he threw his hat in the ring he essential declared war on all minorities aligning himself with the white majority. I'm sure white supremacists across the country felt they finally had a candidate they could support.

If you think the phony race thing still works, think again. It doesn't have anything to do with race.

You are lying. It's ONE of your laundry list reasons for being for the wall

Yes, it is a concern of mine, but not necessarily Trump's.

Can you tell me in what country would people welcome a government trying to make them a minority in their own country other than stupid white liberals?

Trump is playing you. America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion. Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, only whites could be citizens by federal law. In virtually all the colonies, only whites could vote and / or hold public office and that spilled over into state constitutions.

It's not like this stuff is sinful or something we should be ashamed of. Hell, most of you guys argue what China does (92.5 percent of them are of one race.) So why the deflections? Why the dishonesty? Yo cannot preserve your culture without protecting your race. Why do you think the black liberals are erasing your history?

Who said anything about black liberals?

The plot behind the Democrat party is to make whites a minority in this country for political power. Why do you suppose they fight for their Sanctuary cities and now states? Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law from becoming law; a law that may have saved the life of that police officer in California? Why do you suppose they are willing to shutdown the government over a measly 5 billion dollars which is less than what we spend on food stamps in one month? Why do you suppose they give welcome and comfort to illegals by giving them drivers licenses and sending their kids to our schools?

It's pretty obvious what's going on here, and it's not because Democrats are so compassionate. I think your next quest should be to look for the man behind the curtain.

It might be of interest to you to know that 60% of democrats are white. You republicans beat us with 89% white. Must be all those white supremacist and Islamophobes that you guys are so proud of.

 

[Slyhunter]

If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? They keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position.

Our people (government) does not take any inalienable rights away from people because they can't. Rights however are granted to people that are in our country. If visitors, they are granted some constitutional rights. If they become citizens, they are granted all constitutional rights. But constitutional rights are not the same as inalienable rights. It's something I think you're confused about.

A right to be in this country is not an inalienable right, it's a right granted by the government. Therefore it's a right that can be removed by our government.

1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights

A wall won't change any of that. If the government wanted a strict enforcement of the free zone, they could do that tomorrow with no wall. Therefore your claim is moot.

2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb

So WTF does that have to do with the wall? And I"m sorry, I just don't buy into any stories that involve.....

3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.

A wall does that? How? I know nothing about any national ID card. I don't have one, I've never been notified I must have one, and I have no plans to get one.

I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go.

Again, a wall has nothing to do with that. These conspiracy theories of yours are not even part of this planet yet alone country.

I changed my opinion about you. You are not a liberal, you are not a conservative, you're just a plain old kook. But just for shits and giggles, can you tell me how the government could not know I was building a weapon of some sort if a wall wasn't there????

Your associations are so far out even somebody smoking the best pot can't connect them. A wall will not take one right away from you, from me, from any citizen. A wall (like a firearm) has no mystical power of it's own. A wall is simply that, a wall. A wall can't change the Constitution, a wall can't change any laws, a wall can't change anything in the federalist papers. It's simply an inanimate object.

1) I am not arguing inalienable rights.

2) You wrote: " Rights however are granted to people that are in our country."

In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

3) I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone. IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel. So, they do it in small doses. YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.

As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)

4) I don't do theories. I live in the real world. In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty. You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country." Those precedents are a dual edged sword.

Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:

"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."

So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you. You don't have a very sound strategy. All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer. You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border. All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.

The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.

You know you're defeated; that's why the deflections and your inability to be honest with me. In the end, YOU will be screwed by the very monster you are helping to build... and you will have done it to yourself. We got a lot of ground to cover grasshopper. I'm not going to try and debate everyone at the same time who want some - though the best is invited to a REAL debate on another board where it will be one on one - no holds barred.

So one of the functions of the federal government is not to protect it’s citizens?
And flooding our borders with cheap Labor is enforcing the General Welfare clause?
You have an interesting POV of what defines a nation.
We might as well rename the US the Open Borders.

You are dishonest and probably amoral. Since I have so specified at least a dozen times that it is the function of the government to protect us - it just should not serve as a tool to protect you from your own actions. As for the rest, even danielpalos has a point once each year. He's already answered this lame ass allegation from you and others. You need some new material.

Since I cannot "debate" a dozen people as the delusional call these exchanges, I'm sure you will wait your turn. I'm having a discussion with Ray, so save your lies and when we're on equal footing, I'll take you on.

If you want a one on one argument take it to pm.

 

[Ame®icano]

America was founded on the principle that each person is born with unalienable Rights. 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."

So, when I ask you where your Rights come from, I am in reference to the foundational principle found in the DOI as quoted above. Where do YOUR Rights come from?

Some people have a problem with inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable Rights. So, as per the DOI all men have been bestowed by their Creator (their God, whomever they deem that to be) with unalienable Rights. If you disagree, I'm only asking where you get your Rights from. I'm not trying to start some shit with you, only looking for the disconnect. I'm trying to get beyond all the accusations and counter-accusations.

As I told you in private message, I couldn't reply to you right away. In short, and we could discuss about it more later, here is my answer. Sorry for delay, by the way, I'm still recovering from holidays.

As per this, and some of your other posts, I take you as religious person believe that our rights come from "creator". Since I am not religious, I disagree with that approach, because legal existence of our rights required our founding fathers to frame them into Bill of Rights, and without it our fundamental freedoms (free speech, religious rights, gun rights, due process, etc.) would not exist. God can be credited for the rights, but without founding fathers "human action" probably none of it would matter. If our rights do come from "creator" than it would be impossible to take them away, but we do know that US Constitution and it's Amendments could and have been changed in the past, and will probably be changed in the future.

Therefore, I believe our rights come from us and our beliefs that only those who value freedom can be free and defend those freedoms enough to protect them in the form of the Constitution that limits Government from taking those rights and freedoms away (therefore unalienable). In other words, the "creator" for someone religious is a god, and for non religious, creator are we, ourselves.

Do so - called "illegals" have a right (sic) to be here? I'm asking the question of if they do not have a right (sic) to be here, then are you of the opinion that government creates and / or grants rights?

I'm looking for where the disconnect is, not which side is right or wrong. I'm not here to ask you a question and then go off on a tangent calling you an idiot as most of these end up being like. I'm asking a question to see, exactly, where the disconnect is.

Let's start with this. Anyone who enter the country illegally and is not subject to US jurisdiction do not have the full scope of affirmative constitutional rights of a US citizen. The government job is not to create and grant rights, although the government would disagree with that. We already have rights, and they are protected by the Constitution that forbids government from passing any law that restrict those rights.

Now you answer, does Chinese citizen living in China have US constitutional rights, and specifically the right to come to US?

 

[MaryL]

I think most liberals are 90% white kids with a huge "Blame daddy" for all their neurotic
guilt trip fixations. Now, I am a ex liberal, so I know from whence I speak. I blame the kids, they know better.