# A message from a Mexican to The USA



## Deplorable Yankee

Please take back your Mexicans


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Please take back your Mexicans
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 319984
> 
> View attachment 319988



They're going to build a wall to keep us out aren't they?


----------



## Gdjjr

The wall will do more to keep us in..... line than to keep anyone out. We are already asked about citizenship within 100 miles of the Rio Grande- the Police State despises free movement.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Gdjjr said:


> The wall will do more to keep us in..... line than to keep anyone out. We are already asked about citizenship within 100 miles of the Rio Grande- the Police State despises free movement.


That's been going on for a long time ...I thought they stopped those border check 65 miles away from the border where they would harass the shit out of american citizens ...

I've been yellin about the militarization of the police for years ..I used to drive 2 cop homos crazy on another board that is no longer around .

Shooting dogs for no reason ...people had no idea what's been going on but a lot more of em these days are wise to the fact that its outta control...black lives matter damaged the libertarians and assorted righties push to bring attention to the issue of the militarization of the police by turning people off from it by making it all about skin color


----------



## MaryL

Its funny, 50 years ago  the Spaniards (from Mexico) I knew where veterans of the Spanish-American war and even fought in WWI. They  became rag men, they had sad ol swayback ponies they sold rides to children  on, junk men like good  ol' Bonifacio. History is lost.   Now, Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most  of you.


----------



## Gdjjr

MaryL said:


> Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most of you.


Nobody except godverment employees walks all over anyone- being disingenuous doesn't lend credibility- 
I'm here in Texas lived here all my life (except when I was stationed in Long Beach in the Navy) and the only problem I ever had with Mexicans was when some, spoiled, smart ass white boy went to the Mexican part of town and started trouble and came running back to where we were- he went there first.
My best friend in the Navy was a Mexican from Rockdale, Tx -


----------



## MaryL

Gdjjr said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody except godverment employees walks all over anyone- being disingenuous doesn't lend credibility-
> I'm here in Texas lived here all my life (except when I was stationed in Long Beach in the Navy) and the only problem I ever had with Mexicans was when some, spoiled, smart ass white boy went to the Mexican part of town and started trouble and came running back to where we were- he went there first.
> My best friend in the Navy was a Mexican from Rockdale, Tx -
Click to expand...

Well good for you. But the rest of us have had problems with illegal aliens, I kinda doubt that's an isolated occurrence.  I live in Colorado, way far from the southern border and its a ginormous problem. People lose jobs and homes, the  huge negative impact on our judicial system. Colorado is not a border state,  it's hundred of miles from the any border. We didn't ask for this, we didn't allow it to happen, it was forced on us.


----------



## MaryL

American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".


----------



## Gdjjr

MaryL said:


> Well good for you. But the rest of us have had problems with illegal aliens, I kinda doubt that's an isolated occurrence. I live in Colorado, way far from the southern border and its a ginormous problem. People lose jobs and homes, the huge negative impact on our judicial system. Colorado is not a border state, it's hundred of miles from the any border. We didn't ask for this, we didn't allow it to happen, it was forced on us.


Yes, good for me, and quite sanctimonious for you. Congratulations- what you are living are the results of sanctimony believing in itself- people have always lost jobs and homes at which time they adapt and move on or they don't. Matter of fact, Manifest Destiny ensured many lost their homes and their way of life to your hypocritical, self serving sanctimony. Maybe you should run for office.
As for your speaking for "the rest of us", can you provide the credentials that grants you that authority?


----------



## Gdjjr

MaryL said:


> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".


No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you- 
Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
> Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
> Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.
Click to expand...



Saying "change" is not an excuse for bad policy.


BUild the wall, deport the fucking illegals, fuck the employers.


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> BUild the wall, deport the fucking illegals, fuck the employers.


Easy for you to say- but not easy to do.
Change, for the sake of change isn't always good depending on the change. That doesn't negate the fact, with several million years for History for evidence, that change is inevitable. You adapt or you don't. Personally, I think it best to adapt. I didn't get to my age by fighting change. However, reaching my age allows a different perspective.
Hollering about doing one thing or another is change that usually doesn't end well. 
The ONLY thing you can change is your attitude. The choice is, and always will be, your's to make.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUild the wall, deport the fucking illegals, fuck the employers.
> 
> 
> 
> Easy for you to say- but not easy to do.
> Change, for the sake of change isn't always good depending on the change. That doesn't negate the fact, with several million years for History for evidence, that change is inevitable. You adapt or you don't. Personally, I think it best to adapt. I didn't get to my age by fighting change. However, reaching my age allows a different perspective.
> Hollering about doing one thing or another is change that usually doesn't end well.
> The ONLY thing you can change is your attitude. The choice is, and always will be, your's to make.
Click to expand...



WE can choose to change policy. We can build the wall and deport the illegals and fuck the employers.


I never said it would be easy. So not sure why you brought that up.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody except godverment employees walks all over anyone- being disingenuous doesn't lend credibility-
> I'm here in Texas lived here all my life (except when I was stationed in Long Beach in the Navy) and the only problem I ever had with Mexicans was when some, spoiled, smart ass white boy went to the Mexican part of town and started trouble and came running back to where we were- he went there first.
> My best friend in the Navy was a Mexican from Rockdale, Tx -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well good for you. But the rest of us have had problems with illegal aliens, I kinda doubt that's an isolated occurrence.  I live in Colorado, way far from the southern border and its a ginormous problem. People lose jobs and homes, the  huge negative impact on our judicial system. Colorado is not a border state,  it's hundred of miles from the any border. We didn't ask for this, we didn't allow it to happen, it was forced on us.
Click to expand...


Do you mean that people from south of the border actually force stores to sell to them, landlords to rent to them and employers are... what... held at gunpoint and forced to give the little brown people a job? * OR* is it more likely that your neighbors are willingly engaging in the free enterprise system?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUild the wall, deport the fucking illegals, fuck the employers.
> 
> 
> 
> Easy for you to say- but not easy to do.
> Change, for the sake of change isn't always good depending on the change. That doesn't negate the fact, with several million years for History for evidence, that change is inevitable. You adapt or you don't. Personally, I think it best to adapt. I didn't get to my age by fighting change. However, reaching my age allows a different perspective.
> Hollering about doing one thing or another is change that usually doesn't end well.
> The ONLY thing you can change is your attitude. The choice is, and always will be, your's to make.
Click to expand...


As more and more people wake up to the fact that the Democrats nutty wall idea won't work, the extremists are trying to take over social media with that build a wall crap.  What they fail to see is that it is much like gun owners.  Every time the government threatens to outlaw weapons, people buy more.  Every time the extremists raise Hell about immigration, the more politicians find ways to get as many as fast as they can.  One day soon, they will outnumber us  with their American supporters and this will become a moot discussion.

I predict that the day they round up the last documented foreigner will be the day after Uncle Scam confiscates the last firearm in America.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody except godverment employees walks all over anyone- being disingenuous doesn't lend credibility-
> I'm here in Texas lived here all my life (except when I was stationed in Long Beach in the Navy) and the only problem I ever had with Mexicans was when some, spoiled, smart ass white boy went to the Mexican part of town and started trouble and came running back to where we were- he went there first.
> My best friend in the Navy was a Mexican from Rockdale, Tx -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well good for you. But the rest of us have had problems with illegal aliens, I kinda doubt that's an isolated occurrence.  I live in Colorado, way far from the southern border and its a ginormous problem. People lose jobs and homes, the  huge negative impact on our judicial system. Colorado is not a border state,  it's hundred of miles from the any border. We didn't ask for this, we didn't allow it to happen, it was forced on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean that people from south of the border actually force stores to sell to them, landlords to rent to them and employers are... what... held at gunpoint and forced to give the little brown people a job? * OR* is it more likely that your neighbors are willingly engaging in the free enterprise system?
Click to expand...



It is not the stores' job to police the border or check to see if each customer is in the country legally.

That is the job of the government.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUild the wall, deport the fucking illegals, fuck the employers.
> 
> 
> 
> Easy for you to say- but not easy to do.
> Change, for the sake of change isn't always good depending on the change. That doesn't negate the fact, with several million years for History for evidence, that change is inevitable. You adapt or you don't. Personally, I think it best to adapt. I didn't get to my age by fighting change. However, reaching my age allows a different perspective.
> Hollering about doing one thing or another is change that usually doesn't end well.
> The ONLY thing you can change is your attitude. The choice is, and always will be, your's to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As more and more people wake up to the fact that the Democrats nutty wall idea won't work, the extremists are trying to take over social media with that build a wall crap.  What they fail to see is that it is much like gun owners.  Every time the government threatens to outlaw weapons, people buy more.  Every time the extremists raise Hell about immigration, the more politicians find ways to get as many as fast as they can.  One day soon, they will outnumber us  with their American supporters and this will become a moot discussion.
> 
> I predict that the day they round up the last documented foreigner will be the day after Uncle Scam confiscates the last firearm in America.
Click to expand...



So, your answer is to just let them come in and outnumber us that way?


Yeah, I'm not seeing the appeal there. 


BUILD THE WALL, DEPORT THE ILLEGAL, FUCK THE EMPLOYERS.


----------



## Likkmee

Gdjjr said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
> Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
> Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.
Click to expand...

I've been in "Latin America' since the early eighties.The carpenters union hall was 60% Latino as was the ironworkers hall in Dade. The majority of the businesses were Cuban or other Latin owned, or co-owned with old FL crackers.My  US lawyer still is the same Puerto Rican girl(61 now). My accountant is Argentine.
South FL died in 1993 or so when every unemployed dirtbag scam artist invaded post hurricane Andrew. Most from that thar bible bailt.These are the same assholes that build your multi-level shacks from not 2 x 4's and recycled tree chippings with Chinese drywall, idiotic basements and shingle roofs.

I had a landscape company post Andrew that I prided on being 100% gringo... What an idiot move that was. Within 3 weeks out of 17 employees only 2 were "gringo" my backhoe guy and a white shirt to deal with customers.He is a fully bilingual Guatemalan guy(CA born and raised) with a degree in horticulture but 100 % "gringo' at heart.Right down to the Doobie Bros,Fleetwood Mac and Hank Jr.
Then I GTFO of ol #1 and moved to a certified "shithole" complete with State Dept warnings. Central America(not Iowa)

Latinos hate the dirtbags that can't behave in their former countries so come to Merrykuh to do what they do best. Lie and steal. The ones that come legally are generally on a mission and work/educate their asses off to head WAY up a ladder.

Here's a good buddy of mine who has a house right down the hill from me on the peninsula.Started at ZERO.
A one way ticket and a "good luck son".
Imagine the WTF are YOU he encountered back in those days.

Who is Franklin Chang Díaz? Everything You Need to Know


----------



## Gdjjr

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

Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.

Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_


----------



## Gdjjr

Likkmee said:


> Who is Franklin Chang Díaz? Everything You Need to Know


That's a good! story!


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


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



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


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


THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Gdjjr said:


> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_



I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody except godverment employees walks all over anyone- being disingenuous doesn't lend credibility-
> I'm here in Texas lived here all my life (except when I was stationed in Long Beach in the Navy) and the only problem I ever had with Mexicans was when some, spoiled, smart ass white boy went to the Mexican part of town and started trouble and came running back to where we were- he went there first.
> My best friend in the Navy was a Mexican from Rockdale, Tx -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well good for you. But the rest of us have had problems with illegal aliens, I kinda doubt that's an isolated occurrence.  I live in Colorado, way far from the southern border and its a ginormous problem. People lose jobs and homes, the  huge negative impact on our judicial system. Colorado is not a border state,  it's hundred of miles from the any border. We didn't ask for this, we didn't allow it to happen, it was forced on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean that people from south of the border actually force stores to sell to them, landlords to rent to them and employers are... what... held at gunpoint and forced to give the little brown people a job? * OR* is it more likely that your neighbors are willingly engaging in the free enterprise system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the stores' job to police the border or check to see if each customer is in the country legally.
> 
> That is the job of the government.
Click to expand...


Constitutionally speaking, who comes and goes within a *state* is under the jurisdiction of the *state*.  The* federal* government only has jurisdiction over those people with regards to citizenship  (see Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution.)  So, what about all those federal laws about immigration?  Those were implemented after all the founders and framers were dead and buried.  In 1875 the United States granted "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things related to foreigners.  The problem there is that there is NO provision in the United States Constitution that gives the United States Supreme Court any *authority* to grant any power to any other branch of government.  

Ironically, the immigration laws that the MAGA types want enforced were put into place by Democrats with Sen. Ted Kennedy being the chief lobbyist.  Their primary purpose was to dilute the White vote and wage a subtle political war of genocide against the Whites.  

I wholly agree that it is not the store's job to police the border and run checks on potential employees.  The store's job is *not* to provide jobs to those who think they are owed one because they are citizens, live in a specific place, etc.  Businesses are in the business of making money.  If we, the people, disagree with their hiring practices, we have the power to boycott the product.  So, in essence, we vote with our wallets and purses.  If you want to make America great again, go back to when you think it was at its greatest and eliminate all those laws that were passed from that point, forward to get back to where you were.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

This just goes to show ya if you cut off all work arounds that  illegals use to get food stamps and all other kinds of services theyll self deport ...hammer employers on top illegal problem solved ...millions wont even bother to come in the first place


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody except godverment employees walks all over anyone- being disingenuous doesn't lend credibility-
> I'm here in Texas lived here all my life (except when I was stationed in Long Beach in the Navy) and the only problem I ever had with Mexicans was when some, spoiled, smart ass white boy went to the Mexican part of town and started trouble and came running back to where we were- he went there first.
> My best friend in the Navy was a Mexican from Rockdale, Tx -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well good for you. But the rest of us have had problems with illegal aliens, I kinda doubt that's an isolated occurrence.  I live in Colorado, way far from the southern border and its a ginormous problem. People lose jobs and homes, the  huge negative impact on our judicial system. Colorado is not a border state,  it's hundred of miles from the any border. We didn't ask for this, we didn't allow it to happen, it was forced on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean that people from south of the border actually force stores to sell to them, landlords to rent to them and employers are... what... held at gunpoint and forced to give the little brown people a job? * OR* is it more likely that your neighbors are willingly engaging in the free enterprise system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the stores' job to police the border or check to see if each customer is in the country legally.
> 
> That is the job of the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutionally speaking, who comes and goes within a *state* is under the jurisdiction of the *state*.  The* federal* government only has jurisdiction over those people with regards to citizenship  (see Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution.)  So, what about all those federal laws about immigration?  Those were implemented after all the founders and framers were dead and buried.  In 1875 the United States granted "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things related to foreigners.  The problem there is that there is NO provision in the United States Constitution that gives the United States Supreme Court any *authority* to grant any power to any other branch of government.
> 
> Ironically, the immigration laws that the MAGA types want enforced were put into place by Democrats with Sen. Ted Kennedy being the chief lobbyist.  Their primary purpose was to dilute the White vote and wage a subtle political war of genocide against the Whites.
> 
> I wholly agree that it is not the store's job to police the border and run checks on potential employees.  The store's job is *not* to provide jobs to those who think they are owed one because they are citizens, live in a specific place, etc.  Businesses are in the business of making money.  If we, the people, disagree with their hiring practices, we have the power to boycott the product.  So, in essence, we vote with our wallets and purses.  If you want to make America great again, go back to when you think it was at its greatest and eliminate all those laws that were passed from that point, forward to get back to where you were.
Click to expand...




We the people have the power and the right to decide who we invite to join our community. 

Citizens of other nations, do not have the right to come here, against our wishes.

Your denial of these facts, to focus on the right of an employer to hire who he wants, is not reasonable.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free access to America, is not one of those rights, for non-Americans.
> 
> 
> The same way that free access to Mexico is not a right for Americans.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.
Click to expand...


According to the Declaration of Independence:

"_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_."

When those words were penned, there were *no* American citizens.  Yet we waged a war based on that principle.  And, although, our early laws only allowed free white people to become citizens, foreigners came from all over the world to engage in the free market.

We presume* Liberty* to be a God given, absolute, inherent, natural, *unalienable*, irrevocable Right that is above the reach of government.  

*Liberty* -  _1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons_.









						LIBERTY Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
					

Find the legal definition of LIBERTY from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. 1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to...




					thelawdictionary.org
				




You are conflating the privileges of citizenship with the *unalienable* Rights of all men.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> This just goes to show ya if you cut off all work arounds that  illegals use to get food stamps and all other kinds of services theyll self deport ...hammer employers on top illegal problem solved ...millions wont even bother to come in the first place



This has been standard fare for misguided people for years, but most undocumented foreigners never even attempt to get food stamps and / or services.  It's illegal and those who wanted the ultimate *POLICE STATE* gave us that National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify B.S. promising that would end it.  So many of my Rights have been taken over this issue and I don't feel safe and it isn't changing the bottom line.  Even when you disagree, you cannot change the will of the people.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free access to America, is not one of those rights, for non-Americans.
> 
> 
> The same way that free access to Mexico is not a right for Americans.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> "_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_."
> 
> When those words were penned, there were *no* American citizens.  Yet we waged a war based on that principle.
Click to expand...


Correct. There were British subjects.  By the act of rebellion, they stopped being British subjects.  Are you arguing they became some sort of Citizen of the World, or stateless citizens?



> And, although, our early laws only allowed free white people to become citizens, foreigners came from all over the world to engage in the free market.




And we chose to allow that. I'm sure if those people were half as demanding and ungrateful as the immigrants we get today, our Founding Fathers would have sent them packing.



> We presume* Liberty* to be a God given, absolute, inherent, natural, *unalienable*, irrevocable Right that is above the reach of government.



Mmm, "absolute"? I do not have the liberty to come live in your house, against your wishes. Nor to take your property to use as I want.


The right of individuals are balanced by their conflict with the rights of others.




> *Liberty* -  _1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIBERTY Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
> 
> 
> Find the legal definition of LIBERTY from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. 1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating the privileges of citizenship with the *unalienable* Rights of all men.




I am stating that we have the right to decide who we want to come and join our society. 

No outsider has the right to demand membership, in our group.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

BrokeLoser said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
Click to expand...


AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...



As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not. 

YOu are jumping back and forth between universal arguments against our right to do that, and quibbling over historical details of how that power was developed.


That is not the way to have an honest discussion.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free access to America, is not one of those rights, for non-Americans.
> 
> 
> The same way that free access to Mexico is not a right for Americans.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> "_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_."
> 
> When those words were penned, there were *no* American citizens.  Yet we waged a war based on that principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. There were British subjects.  By the act of rebellion, they stopped being British subjects.  Are you arguing they became some sort of Citizen of the World, or stateless citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, although, our early laws only allowed free white people to become citizens, foreigners came from all over the world to engage in the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we chose to allow that. I'm sure if those people were half as demanding and ungrateful as the immigrants we get today, our Founding Fathers would have sent them packing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We presume* Liberty* to be a God given, absolute, inherent, natural, *unalienable*, irrevocable Right that is above the reach of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmm, "absolute"? I do not have the liberty to come live in your house, against your wishes. Nor to take your property to use as I want.
> 
> 
> The right of individuals are balanced by their conflict with the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberty* -  _1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIBERTY Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
> 
> 
> Find the legal definition of LIBERTY from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. 1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating the privileges of citizenship with the *unalienable* Rights of all men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am stating that we have the right to decide who we want to come and join our society.
> 
> No outsider has the right to demand membership, in our group.
Click to expand...


1)  The colonists became free

2)  Your Rights end where my nose begins.  You're trying to be flippant.  Try honesty.  Employers should be able to hire the employee of their choice; sellers should be allowed to pick and choose their clientele; homeowners should be able to sell to whomever they want.  Transactions should be voluntary, not mandated by the government

3)  If you are advocating that we choose who becomes a part of our society, then you are claiming that the government gives you your Rights.  The government agrees by way of an illegally ratified Amendment to the Constitution.  Allow me to quote something for you:

"_No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_."  

If you will note, citizens get privileges and immunities, but ALL PERSONS are guaranteed Liberty as per that Amendment.  I defined Liberty in an earlier post.  Foreigners are not citizens and should not be a part of the group.  That group was identified in the Preamble of the Constitution.  But everybody is entitled to Liberty which includes the ability to participate in the free market.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
> 
> YOu are jumping back and forth between universal arguments against our right to do that, and quibbling over historical details of how that power was developed.
> 
> 
> That is not the way to have an honest discussion.
Click to expand...



No sir, YOU are being dishonest.  I'm giving you the facts.  You conflate citizenship with the *unalienable* Rights of all men.  Citizenship gives us the privilege of voting, holding public office, having a say in how we are governed.  It was expanded so that citizens could get welfare and Socialist Security.  I'm sure there are plenty of privileges and immunities that don't come to mind.   At no time were foreigners locked out of the process of participating in the free market.  We have the authority to regulate foreigners, but not exclude them when Americans are willingly doing business with them.  You should take a little time and read the thread.  Most of your arguments have already been refuted.  We are getting into a repetition of the facts.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free access to America, is not one of those rights, for non-Americans.
> 
> 
> The same way that free access to Mexico is not a right for Americans.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> "_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_."
> 
> When those words were penned, there were *no* American citizens.  Yet we waged a war based on that principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. There were British subjects.  By the act of rebellion, they stopped being British subjects.  Are you arguing they became some sort of Citizen of the World, or stateless citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, although, our early laws only allowed free white people to become citizens, foreigners came from all over the world to engage in the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we chose to allow that. I'm sure if those people were half as demanding and ungrateful as the immigrants we get today, our Founding Fathers would have sent them packing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We presume* Liberty* to be a God given, absolute, inherent, natural, *unalienable*, irrevocable Right that is above the reach of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmm, "absolute"? I do not have the liberty to come live in your house, against your wishes. Nor to take your property to use as I want.
> 
> 
> The right of individuals are balanced by their conflict with the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberty* -  _1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIBERTY Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
> 
> 
> Find the legal definition of LIBERTY from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. 1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating the privileges of citizenship with the *unalienable* Rights of all men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am stating that we have the right to decide who we want to come and join our society.
> 
> No outsider has the right to demand membership, in our group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The colonists became free
Click to expand...


What do you mean by "Free".  As in not the citizen of a state? 




> 2)  Your Rights end where my nose begins.  You're trying to be flippant.  Try honesty.  Employers should be able to hire the employee of their choice; sellers should be allowed to pick and choose their clientele; homeowners should be able to sell to whomever they want.  Transactions should be voluntary, not mandated by the government



I have no problem with rules on whom an employer can hire. Limitations on child labor, for one example. Asking them to verify that the person is here legally, is a reasonable part of maintaining a well regulated market. 




> 3)  If you are advocating that we choose who becomes a part of our society, then you are claiming that the government gives you your Rights.  The government agrees by way of an illegally ratified Amendment to the Constitution.  Allow me to quote something for you:



Nope. Rights do not flow from the government nor the group, but are god given. What is being extended or denied is membership in our group.  Outsiders still have those god given rights. Not being an American Citizens does not mean that, say, a Mexican does not have his rights. What he does not have, is membership in our group. ANd he never had a right to come here against our right to define our group.



> "_No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_."
> 
> 
> 
> If you will note, citizens get privileges and immunities, but ALL PERSONS are guaranteed Liberty as per that Amendment.



If the person is here illegally, hiding from the law, they are not "within our jurisdiction" and should be deported immediately.



> I defined Liberty in an earlier post.



You gave your overly generous and personal definition. Which, neither I nor America are bound by.



> Foreigners are not citizens and should not be a part of the group.  That group was identified in the Preamble of the Constitution.  But everybody is entitled to Liberty which includes the ability to participate in the free market.



No, it does not. PEDRO GO HOME.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
> 
> YOu are jumping back and forth between universal arguments against our right to do that, and quibbling over historical details of how that power was developed.
> 
> 
> That is not the way to have an honest discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, YOU are being dishonest.  I'm giving you the facts.  You conflate citizenship with the *unalienable* Rights of all men.  Citizenship gives us the privilege of voting, holding public office, having a say in how we are governed.  It was expanded so that citizens could get welfare and Socialist Security.  I'm sure there are plenty of privileges and immunities that don't come to mind.   At no time were foreigners locked out of the process of participating in the free market.  We have the authority to regulate foreigners, but not exclude them when Americans are willingly doing business with them.  You should take a little time and read the thread.  Most of your arguments have already been refuted.  We are getting into a repetition of the facts.
Click to expand...



Define "Regulate foreigners".


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free access to America, is not one of those rights, for non-Americans.
> 
> 
> The same way that free access to Mexico is not a right for Americans.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> "_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_."
> 
> When those words were penned, there were *no* American citizens.  Yet we waged a war based on that principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. There were British subjects.  By the act of rebellion, they stopped being British subjects.  Are you arguing they became some sort of Citizen of the World, or stateless citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, although, our early laws only allowed free white people to become citizens, foreigners came from all over the world to engage in the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we chose to allow that. I'm sure if those people were half as demanding and ungrateful as the immigrants we get today, our Founding Fathers would have sent them packing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We presume* Liberty* to be a God given, absolute, inherent, natural, *unalienable*, irrevocable Right that is above the reach of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmm, "absolute"? I do not have the liberty to come live in your house, against your wishes. Nor to take your property to use as I want.
> 
> 
> The right of individuals are balanced by their conflict with the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberty* -  _1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIBERTY Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
> 
> 
> Find the legal definition of LIBERTY from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. 1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating the privileges of citizenship with the *unalienable* Rights of all men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am stating that we have the right to decide who we want to come and join our society.
> 
> No outsider has the right to demand membership, in our group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The colonists became free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "Free".  As in not the citizen of a state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2)  Your Rights end where my nose begins.  You're trying to be flippant.  Try honesty.  Employers should be able to hire the employee of their choice; sellers should be allowed to pick and choose their clientele; homeowners should be able to sell to whomever they want.  Transactions should be voluntary, not mandated by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with rules on whom an employer can hire. Limitations on child labor, for one example. Asking them to verify that the person is here legally, is a reasonable part of maintaining a well regulated market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3)  If you are advocating that we choose who becomes a part of our society, then you are claiming that the government gives you your Rights.  The government agrees by way of an illegally ratified Amendment to the Constitution.  Allow me to quote something for you:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Rights do not flow from the government nor the group, but are god given. What is being extended or denied is membership in our group.  Outsiders still have those god given rights. Not being an American Citizens does not mean that, say, a Mexican does not have his rights. What he does not have, is membership in our group. ANd he never had a right to come here against our right to define our group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_."
> 
> 
> 
> If you will note, citizens get privileges and immunities, but ALL PERSONS are guaranteed Liberty as per that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the person is here illegally, hiding from the law, they are not "within our jurisdiction" and should be deported immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I defined Liberty in an earlier post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gave your overly generous and personal definition. Which, neither I nor America are bound by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners are not citizens and should not be a part of the group.  That group was identified in the Preamble of the Constitution.  But everybody is entitled to Liberty which includes the ability to participate in the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not. PEDRO GO HOME.
Click to expand...


I don't like doing multi quote posts.

1)  Free for purposes of citizenship meant that the individual had not sold themselves into servitude.  Many Whites came here as indentured servants

2)  I see you have no respect for the Fourth Amendment

3)  If a person has Liberty, they have a Right to come to the United States.  Just because someone shows up in your neighborhood does not mean that they are your family

4)  If an individual is not *within the jurisdiction*, then the authorities have no authority over them

5)  I gave a legal definition from *Black's Law Dictionary* for the word Liberty.  Black's is the most authoritative legal dictionary in the legal community

6)  The fact that foreigners *DID* come here from 1790 to 1875 without incident refutes your entire argument.  And again, read the thread.  The United States Supreme Court had no authority to legislate from the bench

7)  *Liberty* is not yours to give, but if you don't want foreigners here then do not buy from them; don't sell to them; don't do business with companies that employ them; don't rent to them.  *IF* they are not welcome, the presupposed minority (since you don't understand facts) we will decide and not have to involve the government.

I think you're filibustering for some TLDR replies from me.  Great strategy, but intellectually dishonest.  You can't handle the truth.  Takes too long to explain.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
> 
> YOu are jumping back and forth between universal arguments against our right to do that, and quibbling over historical details of how that power was developed.
> 
> 
> That is not the way to have an honest discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, YOU are being dishonest.  I'm giving you the facts.  You conflate citizenship with the *unalienable* Rights of all men.  Citizenship gives us the privilege of voting, holding public office, having a say in how we are governed.  It was expanded so that citizens could get welfare and Socialist Security.  I'm sure there are plenty of privileges and immunities that don't come to mind.   At no time were foreigners locked out of the process of participating in the free market.  We have the authority to regulate foreigners, but not exclude them when Americans are willingly doing business with them.  You should take a little time and read the thread.  Most of your arguments have already been refuted.  We are getting into a repetition of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Define "Regulate foreigners".
Click to expand...


America* could *set up a system like it was when I was a kid.  You come up to the border and present your ID.  An agent asks your business and how long you intend to be here.  You come in.  My idea:  IF you intend to stay and take a job, you go to the IRS and get a Guest Worker ID.  If they lose their job, it is reported to the authorities.  Then their Guest Worker ID is monitored.  If that foreigner has not gotten another job or left the country, they are located.  If they lack the resources and / or have no credible means of support, they are deported.  Working in the U.S. without the Guest Worker ID would involve the IRS and BICE.  IF they are employed, but not paying taxes the IRS has an interest in finding them.  AND you know who they are.  There is no need to hire coyotes if all you do is present your ID and it is recorded at the point of entry.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Likkmee said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
> Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
> Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been in "Latin America' since the early eighties.The carpenters union hall was 60% Latino as was the ironworkers hall in Dade. The majority of the businesses were Cuban or other Latin owned, or co-owned with old FL crackers.My  US lawyer still is the same Puerto Rican girl(61 now). My accountant is Argentine.
> South FL died in 1993 or so when every unemployed dirtbag scam artist invaded post hurricane Andrew. Most from that thar bible bailt.These are the same assholes that build your multi-level shacks from not 2 x 4's and recycled tree chippings with Chinese drywall, idiotic basements and shingle roofs.
> 
> I had a landscape company post Andrew that I prided on being 100% gringo... What an idiot move that was. Within 3 weeks out of 17 employees only 2 were "gringo" my backhoe guy and a white shirt to deal with customers.He is a fully bilingual Guatemalan guy(CA born and raised) with a degree in horticulture but 100 % "gringo' at heart.Right down to the Doobie Bros,Fleetwood Mac and Hank Jr.
> Then I GTFO of ol #1 and moved to a certified "shithole" complete with State Dept warnings. Central America(not Iowa)
> 
> Latinos hate the dirtbags that can't behave in their former countries so come to Merrykuh to do what they do best. Lie and steal. The ones that come legally are generally on a mission and work/educate their asses off to head WAY up a ladder.
> 
> Here's a good buddy of mine who has a house right down the hill from me on the peninsula.Started at ZERO.
> A one way ticket and a "good luck son".
> Imagine the WTF are YOU he encountered back in those days.
> 
> Who is Franklin Chang Díaz? Everything You Need to Know
Click to expand...

*¿*Te gusta Los Marielitos?


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter Rockwell said:


> When those words were penned, there were *no* American citizens.


There were no caveats. Period. It clearly stated; ALL men are created equal. .

Like I said, if you believe it you can live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it- to deny the philosophy that brought wisdom to the table is to deny wisdom even exists. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. Those are, arguably, the most powerful and profound words ever penned by man for man. However, what they can't do is create humility in an arrogant attitude.


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.


Hypocritically sovereign for sure. The fed gov't (and its elite employees) refuse to recognize sovereign unless/until they feel they can bullshit people about invading sovereign countries with lame excuses- they don't recognize sovereign states at home and they certainly don't recognize sovereignty of a person.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please take back your Mexicans
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 319984
> 
> View attachment 319988
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're going to build a wall to keep us out aren't they?
Click to expand...

We wouldn't need a wall if we opened the border region to hunting.


----------



## Gdjjr

Tipsycatlover said:


> We wouldn't need a wall if we opened the border region to hunting.


We don't "need" a wall now- many want a wall- that is no need, but a desire- not much different than feeling superior for no good reason other than pure luck got you born here. A wall will require land confiscation from established citizens. It will cost more money that we don't have unless borrowed and adding to the insurmountable debt that your kids, kids, kids, kids, kids will be paying interest on and wondering why their ancestors were so free with OPM.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free access to America, is not one of those rights, for non-Americans.
> 
> 
> The same way that free access to Mexico is not a right for Americans.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> "_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_."
> 
> When those words were penned, there were *no* American citizens.  Yet we waged a war based on that principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. There were British subjects.  By the act of rebellion, they stopped being British subjects.  Are you arguing they became some sort of Citizen of the World, or stateless citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, although, our early laws only allowed free white people to become citizens, foreigners came from all over the world to engage in the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we chose to allow that. I'm sure if those people were half as demanding and ungrateful as the immigrants we get today, our Founding Fathers would have sent them packing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We presume* Liberty* to be a God given, absolute, inherent, natural, *unalienable*, irrevocable Right that is above the reach of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmm, "absolute"? I do not have the liberty to come live in your house, against your wishes. Nor to take your property to use as I want.
> 
> 
> The right of individuals are balanced by their conflict with the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberty* -  _1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIBERTY Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
> 
> 
> Find the legal definition of LIBERTY from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. 1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating the privileges of citizenship with the *unalienable* Rights of all men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am stating that we have the right to decide who we want to come and join our society.
> 
> No outsider has the right to demand membership, in our group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The colonists became free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "Free".  As in not the citizen of a state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2)  Your Rights end where my nose begins.  You're trying to be flippant.  Try honesty.  Employers should be able to hire the employee of their choice; sellers should be allowed to pick and choose their clientele; homeowners should be able to sell to whomever they want.  Transactions should be voluntary, not mandated by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with rules on whom an employer can hire. Limitations on child labor, for one example. Asking them to verify that the person is here legally, is a reasonable part of maintaining a well regulated market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3)  If you are advocating that we choose who becomes a part of our society, then you are claiming that the government gives you your Rights.  The government agrees by way of an illegally ratified Amendment to the Constitution.  Allow me to quote something for you:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Rights do not flow from the government nor the group, but are god given. What is being extended or denied is membership in our group.  Outsiders still have those god given rights. Not being an American Citizens does not mean that, say, a Mexican does not have his rights. What he does not have, is membership in our group. ANd he never had a right to come here against our right to define our group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_."
> 
> 
> 
> If you will note, citizens get privileges and immunities, but ALL PERSONS are guaranteed Liberty as per that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the person is here illegally, hiding from the law, they are not "within our jurisdiction" and should be deported immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I defined Liberty in an earlier post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gave your overly generous and personal definition. Which, neither I nor America are bound by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners are not citizens and should not be a part of the group.  That group was identified in the Preamble of the Constitution.  But everybody is entitled to Liberty which includes the ability to participate in the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not. PEDRO GO HOME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't like doing multi quote posts.
> 
> 1)  Free for purposes of citizenship meant that the individual had not sold themselves into servitude.  Many Whites came here as indentured servants
Click to expand...



a. So, indentured servant contracts were all nullified at that time? I never heard of that before. YOu sure?

b. So, the vast majority of the population, who were not indentured servants, NOTHING changed? That is not credible.



> 2)  I see you have no respect for the Fourth Amendment



It is fine that you don't like multi-quotes. But then you have to reference the point you are addressing. That tells me nothing.



> 3)  If a person has Liberty, they have a Right to come to the United States.  Just because someone shows up in your neighborhood does not mean that they are your family




Not "a person". Policies and laws are not set to deal with "A PERSON". If you are arguing that Americans as a whole, do not have the right to limit who enters our territory, then you are arguing that EVERY GROUP IN THE PLANET does, from the most hate filled ISSIS worshiping tribe of barbarians, to all 1 billion chinese.

In that case, any discussion of America, or American laws or customs or actions is moot, because within our lifetime, we as as population would be utterly overwhelmed and the new, much larger and much poorer and almost completely different population that takes our place, will put together their own way of doing things, which ironically will not include open borders like you want.




> 4)  If an individual is not *within the jurisdiction*, then the authorities have no authority over them



As long as PEDRO goes home, call it what you will.



> 5)  I gave a legal definition from *Black's Law Dictionary* for the word Liberty.  Black's is the most authoritative legal dictionary in the legal community



A legal definition? Interesting qualifiers. Are there OTHER legal definitions? In the same book? And just because you can argue something based on legalistic definitions, does not make it right. It might, MIGHT have the power of the state behind it, but that is not the same as being right.




> 6)  The fact that foreigners *DID* come here from 1790 to 1875 without incident refutes your entire argument.  And again, read the thread.  The United States Supreme Court had no authority to legislate from the bench



No, it does not. Just because a power is not exercised, does not mean it ceases to exist. I have the power to move to another state. I have never done so, but I still have that power.



> 7)  *Liberty* is not yours to give, but if you don't want foreigners here then do not buy from them; don't sell to them; don't do business with companies that employ them; don't rent to them.  *IF* they are not welcome, the presupposed minority (since you don't understand facts) we will decide and not have to involve the government.



I do not possess the right to say, travel to Switzerland, if they do not want me there. It is their nation. They get to choose whether or not to allow me to travel there, and certainly whether or not to stay.

Likewise, Pedro, the Mexican, has not right to come here, against our wishes. 


YOur talk of "presupposed minorities" does not change that. 



> I think you're filibustering for some TLDR replies from me.  Great strategy, but intellectually dishonest.  You can't handle the truth.  Takes too long to explain.




Nope.


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> I do not possess the right to say, travel to Switzerland, if they do not want me there. It is their nation. They get to choose whether or not to allow me to travel there, and certainly whether or not to stay.
> 
> Likewise, Pedro, the Mexican, has not right to come here, against our wishes.


We're not Switzerland- and rights and wishes are not the same thing.
Rights are inherent, not tangible. They are determined and exercised by the Individual. They can be restricted, but not stopped, taken or given.
ALL men have certain unalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats. You either believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you can live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it. To deny they exist is immoral because you will act on that belief and likely cause harm to another. The choice of how you deal with it is yours. If you choose to believe they exist, but only under a set of circumstances you approve of, that begs the question, by what moral authority are you basing that? Laws and morals rarely meet.

ALL laws, though meant to punish for a crime, restrict rights of people who have committed no crime and are fined (a form of punishment), usually through a citation or court order- so, in order to carry out your wishes you want the rights of others restricted- just admit it and lets be on our merry way.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocritically sovereign for sure. The fed gov't (and its elite employees) refuse to recognize sovereign unless/until they feel they can bullshit people about invading sovereign countries with lame excuses- they don't recognize sovereign states at home and they certainly don't recognize sovereignty of a person.
Click to expand...



You want to let one billion chinese move here?


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just goes to show ya if you cut off all work arounds that  illegals use to get food stamps and all other kinds of services theyll self deport ...hammer employers on top illegal problem solved ...millions wont even bother to come in the first place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been standard fare for misguided people for years, but most undocumented foreigners never even attempt to get food stamps and / or services.  It's illegal and those who wanted the ultimate *POLICE STATE* gave us that National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify B.S. promising that would end it.  So many of my Rights have been taken over this issue and I don't feel safe and it isn't changing the bottom line.  Even when you disagree, you cannot change the will of the people.
Click to expand...



Misguided ....err nope ....no siree
study after study over the years and even social workers who have opened thier  mouths .....bankrupt hospitals in texas and cali ...get across the border get a court date? ....heres a work permit, food stamps your even eligible for cash assistance and what's left of Medicaid...

Quite a few states have programs for when they skip that court date .....and the stamps continue ....even housing assistance


I think you're the one who is misguided on it ....go find out for yourself

Put an end to social services for illegals ....it would make a huge dent in the problem ...

Arent you a tax is theft libertarian?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Porter Rockwell said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free access to America, is not one of those rights, for non-Americans.
> 
> 
> The same way that free access to Mexico is not a right for Americans.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> "_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_."
> 
> When those words were penned, there were *no* American citizens.  Yet we waged a war based on that principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. There were British subjects.  By the act of rebellion, they stopped being British subjects.  Are you arguing they became some sort of Citizen of the World, or stateless citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, although, our early laws only allowed free white people to become citizens, foreigners came from all over the world to engage in the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we chose to allow that. I'm sure if those people were half as demanding and ungrateful as the immigrants we get today, our Founding Fathers would have sent them packing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We presume* Liberty* to be a God given, absolute, inherent, natural, *unalienable*, irrevocable Right that is above the reach of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmm, "absolute"? I do not have the liberty to come live in your house, against your wishes. Nor to take your property to use as I want.
> 
> 
> The right of individuals are balanced by their conflict with the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberty* -  _1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIBERTY Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
> 
> 
> Find the legal definition of LIBERTY from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. 1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating the privileges of citizenship with the *unalienable* Rights of all men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am stating that we have the right to decide who we want to come and join our society.
> 
> No outsider has the right to demand membership, in our group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The colonists became free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "Free".  As in not the citizen of a state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2)  Your Rights end where my nose begins.  You're trying to be flippant.  Try honesty.  Employers should be able to hire the employee of their choice; sellers should be allowed to pick and choose their clientele; homeowners should be able to sell to whomever they want.  Transactions should be voluntary, not mandated by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with rules on whom an employer can hire. Limitations on child labor, for one example. Asking them to verify that the person is here legally, is a reasonable part of maintaining a well regulated market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3)  If you are advocating that we choose who becomes a part of our society, then you are claiming that the government gives you your Rights.  The government agrees by way of an illegally ratified Amendment to the Constitution.  Allow me to quote something for you:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Rights do not flow from the government nor the group, but are god given. What is being extended or denied is membership in our group.  Outsiders still have those god given rights. Not being an American Citizens does not mean that, say, a Mexican does not have his rights. What he does not have, is membership in our group. ANd he never had a right to come here against our right to define our group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_."
> 
> 
> 
> If you will note, citizens get privileges and immunities, but ALL PERSONS are guaranteed Liberty as per that Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the person is here illegally, hiding from the law, they are not "within our jurisdiction" and should be deported immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I defined Liberty in an earlier post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gave your overly generous and personal definition. Which, neither I nor America are bound by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners are not citizens and should not be a part of the group.  That group was identified in the Preamble of the Constitution.  But everybody is entitled to Liberty which includes the ability to participate in the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not. PEDRO GO HOME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't like doing multi quote posts.
> 
> 1)  Free for purposes of citizenship meant that the individual had not sold themselves into servitude.  Many Whites came here as indentured servants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a. So, indentured servant contracts were all nullified at that time? I never heard of that before. YOu sure?
> 
> b. So, the vast majority of the population, who were not indentured servants, NOTHING changed? That is not credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2)  I see you have no respect for the Fourth Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is fine that you don't like multi-quotes. But then you have to reference the point you are addressing. That tells me nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3)  If a person has Liberty, they have a Right to come to the United States.  Just because someone shows up in your neighborhood does not mean that they are your family
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not "a person". Policies and laws are not set to deal with "A PERSON". If you are arguing that Americans as a whole, do not have the right to limit who enters our territory, then you are arguing that EVERY GROUP IN THE PLANET does, from the most hate filled ISSIS worshiping tribe of barbarians, to all 1 billion chinese.
> 
> In that case, any discussion of America, or American laws or customs or actions is moot, because within our lifetime, we as as population would be utterly overwhelmed and the new, much larger and much poorer and almost completely different population that takes our place, will put together their own way of doing things, which ironically will not include open borders like you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4)  If an individual is not *within the jurisdiction*, then the authorities have no authority over them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as PEDRO goes home, call it what you will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5)  I gave a legal definition from *Black's Law Dictionary* for the word Liberty.  Black's is the most authoritative legal dictionary in the legal community
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A legal definition? Interesting qualifiers. Are there OTHER legal definitions? In the same book? And just because you can argue something based on legalistic definitions, does not make it right. It might, MIGHT have the power of the state behind it, but that is not the same as being right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6)  The fact that foreigners *DID* come here from 1790 to 1875 without incident refutes your entire argument.  And again, read the thread.  The United States Supreme Court had no authority to legislate from the bench
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not. Just because a power is not exercised, does not mean it ceases to exist. I have the power to move to another state. I have never done so, but I still have that power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7)  *Liberty* is not yours to give, but if you don't want foreigners here then do not buy from them; don't sell to them; don't do business with companies that employ them; don't rent to them.  *IF* they are not welcome, the presupposed minority (since you don't understand facts) we will decide and not have to involve the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not possess the right to say, travel to Switzerland, if they do not want me there. It is their nation. They get to choose whether or not to allow me to travel there, and certainly whether or not to stay.
> 
> Likewise, Pedro, the Mexican, has not right to come here, against our wishes.
> 
> 
> YOur talk of "presupposed minorities" does not change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're filibustering for some TLDR replies from me.  Great strategy, but intellectually dishonest.  You can't handle the truth.  Takes too long to explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...


If you'd like to ask a question or make a comment, do so.  Readers have a tendency to fall asleep during these TLDR multi quote exchanges.  I told you, I don't like them and that one start out with silly trolling.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just goes to show ya if you cut off all work arounds that  illegals use to get food stamps and all other kinds of services theyll self deport ...hammer employers on top illegal problem solved ...millions wont even bother to come in the first place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been standard fare for misguided people for years, but most undocumented foreigners never even attempt to get food stamps and / or services.  It's illegal and those who wanted the ultimate *POLICE STATE* gave us that National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify B.S. promising that would end it.  So many of my Rights have been taken over this issue and I don't feel safe and it isn't changing the bottom line.  Even when you disagree, you cannot change the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Misguided ....err nope ....no siree
> study after study over the years and even social workers who have opened thier  mouths .....bankrupt hospitals in texas and cali ...get across the border get a court date? ....heres a work permit, food stamps your even eligible for cash assistance and what's left of Medicaid...
> 
> Quite a few states have programs for when they skip that court date .....and the stamps continue ....even housing assistance
> 
> 
> I think you're the one who is misguided on it ....go find out for yourself
> 
> Put an end to social services for illegals ....it would make a huge dent in the problem ...
> 
> Arent you a tax is theft libertarian?
Click to expand...


I'm more of a constitutionalist that says what California does is California's business.  It's already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get social services and the federal government is under no obligation to help states fund people they can't afford.  Been hearing that broke hospital B.S. for nearly 30 years yet those hospitals are still going.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
Click to expand...


Yes, it was illegally ratified:





__





						The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
					





					www.sweetliberty.org
				






			http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
		




			Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
		


The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal.  What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights.  Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the *unalienable* Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence,  the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you _"Due Process_."

Simply put:

*Bill of Rights* = God given, irrevocable,_ unalienable_, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
*14th Amendment* = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights

The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the *grantor of your Rights* are.  Creator or government?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocritically sovereign for sure. The fed gov't (and its elite employees) refuse to recognize sovereign unless/until they feel they can bullshit people about invading sovereign countries with lame excuses- they don't recognize sovereign states at home and they certainly don't recognize sovereignty of a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
Click to expand...


If you do not do business with the Chinese, they have no reason to come here.  Never ask the government to do something for you that you can do better, and less costly, on your own.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Porter Rockwell said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was illegally ratified:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sweetliberty.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal.  What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights.  Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the *unalienable* Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence,  the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you _"Due Process_."
> 
> Simply put:
> 
> *Bill of Rights* = God given, irrevocable,_ unalienable_, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
> *14th Amendment* = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
> 
> The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the *grantor of your Rights* are.  Creator or government?
Click to expand...


You are simply full of shit.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was illegally ratified:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sweetliberty.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal.  What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights.  Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the *unalienable* Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence,  the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you _"Due Process_."
> 
> Simply put:
> 
> *Bill of Rights* = God given, irrevocable,_ unalienable_, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
> *14th Amendment* = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
> 
> The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the *grantor of your Rights* are.  Creator or government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply full of shit.
Click to expand...


*Only because I don't agree with you.*  But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:

"_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be infringed*_."

There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed.  The word infringe is synonymous with the word* limit:*









						infringe
					

infringe synonyms, antonyms, and related words in the Free Thesaurus




					www.freethesaurus.com
				




Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim *unalienable* and inalienable are the same thing.  Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:

"_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be limited."*_

But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):

"_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_" 






						DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




Read the dicta in the case.  The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right.  From where did it come from?  It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that.  For example:

"_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_. "   United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) 

Sounds pretty unlimited to me.  So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?

"..._the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the *Fourteenth Amendment*, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms._.."
_McDonald v. Chicago_, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) 

Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of _"rights"_ under that Amendment.  Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board.  BTW, go back to the Heller decision.  It says that "_like most rights_..."  Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere.  I just showed you where it happened.  So, you were ignorant.  You've been schooled.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Porter Rockwell said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was illegally ratified:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sweetliberty.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal.  What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights.  Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the *unalienable* Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence,  the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you _"Due Process_."
> 
> Simply put:
> 
> *Bill of Rights* = God given, irrevocable,_ unalienable_, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
> *14th Amendment* = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
> 
> The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the *grantor of your Rights* are.  Creator or government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only because I don't agree with you.*  But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be infringed*_."
> 
> There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed.  The word infringe is synonymous with the word* limit:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> infringe
> 
> 
> infringe synonyms, antonyms, and related words in the Free Thesaurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freethesaurus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim *unalienable* and inalienable are the same thing.  Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be limited."*_
> 
> But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
> 
> "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the dicta in the case.  The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right.  From where did it come from?  It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that.  For example:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_. "   United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> Sounds pretty unlimited to me.  So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
> 
> "..._the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the *Fourteenth Amendment*, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms._.."
> _McDonald v. Chicago_, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
> 
> Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of _"rights"_ under that Amendment.  Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board.  BTW, go back to the Heller decision.  It says that "_like most rights_..."  Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere.  I just showed you where it happened.  So, you were ignorant.  You've been schooled.
Click to expand...


Who is limiting your 2nd Amendment rights?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was illegally ratified:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sweetliberty.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal.  What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights.  Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the *unalienable* Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence,  the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you _"Due Process_."
> 
> Simply put:
> 
> *Bill of Rights* = God given, irrevocable,_ unalienable_, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
> *14th Amendment* = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
> 
> The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the *grantor of your Rights* are.  Creator or government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only because I don't agree with you.*  But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be infringed*_."
> 
> There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed.  The word infringe is synonymous with the word* limit:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> infringe
> 
> 
> infringe synonyms, antonyms, and related words in the Free Thesaurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freethesaurus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim *unalienable* and inalienable are the same thing.  Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be limited."*_
> 
> But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
> 
> "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the dicta in the case.  The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right.  From where did it come from?  It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that.  For example:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_. "   United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> Sounds pretty unlimited to me.  So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
> 
> "..._the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the *Fourteenth Amendment*, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms._.."
> _McDonald v. Chicago_, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
> 
> Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of _"rights"_ under that Amendment.  Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board.  BTW, go back to the Heller decision.  It says that "_like most rights_..."  Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere.  I just showed you where it happened.  So, you were ignorant.  You've been schooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is limiting your 2nd Amendment rights?
Click to expand...


Uncle Scam


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Porter Rockwell said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was illegally ratified:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sweetliberty.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal.  What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights.  Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the *unalienable* Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence,  the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you _"Due Process_."
> 
> Simply put:
> 
> *Bill of Rights* = God given, irrevocable,_ unalienable_, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
> *14th Amendment* = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
> 
> The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the *grantor of your Rights* are.  Creator or government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only because I don't agree with you.*  But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be infringed*_."
> 
> There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed.  The word infringe is synonymous with the word* limit:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> infringe
> 
> 
> infringe synonyms, antonyms, and related words in the Free Thesaurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freethesaurus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim *unalienable* and inalienable are the same thing.  Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be limited."*_
> 
> But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
> 
> "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the dicta in the case.  The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right.  From where did it come from?  It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that.  For example:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_. "   United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> Sounds pretty unlimited to me.  So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
> 
> "..._the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the *Fourteenth Amendment*, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms._.."
> _McDonald v. Chicago_, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
> 
> Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of _"rights"_ under that Amendment.  Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board.  BTW, go back to the Heller decision.  It says that "_like most rights_..."  Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere.  I just showed you where it happened.  So, you were ignorant.  You've been schooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is limiting your 2nd Amendment rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Scam
Click to expand...


I suggest immediate departure from the closest airport.  Delta is ready when you are!

Why do have less knowledge about the Constitution than a high school student with Google?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was illegally ratified:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sweetliberty.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal.  What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights.  Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the *unalienable* Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence,  the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you _"Due Process_."
> 
> Simply put:
> 
> *Bill of Rights* = God given, irrevocable,_ unalienable_, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
> *14th Amendment* = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
> 
> The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the *grantor of your Rights* are.  Creator or government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only because I don't agree with you.*  But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be infringed*_."
> 
> There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed.  The word infringe is synonymous with the word* limit:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> infringe
> 
> 
> infringe synonyms, antonyms, and related words in the Free Thesaurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freethesaurus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim *unalienable* and inalienable are the same thing.  Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be limited."*_
> 
> But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
> 
> "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the dicta in the case.  The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right.  From where did it come from?  It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that.  For example:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_. "   United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> Sounds pretty unlimited to me.  So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
> 
> "..._the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the *Fourteenth Amendment*, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms._.."
> _McDonald v. Chicago_, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
> 
> Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of _"rights"_ under that Amendment.  Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board.  BTW, go back to the Heller decision.  It says that "_like most rights_..."  Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere.  I just showed you where it happened.  So, you were ignorant.  You've been schooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is limiting your 2nd Amendment rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest immediate departure from the closest airport.  Delta is ready when you are!
> 
> Why do have less knowledge about the Constitution than a high school student with Google?
Click to expand...


If you believe what you just posted, you are the dumbest individual on USM.  I've worked on two cases that made it to the United States Supreme Court (insignificant cases in the grand scheme of things) and were won.  I have thirty six courtroom wins and never lost nor over-turned on appeal.  And your legal experience?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Porter Rockwell said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was illegally ratified:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sweetliberty.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal.  What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights.  Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the *unalienable* Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence,  the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you _"Due Process_."
> 
> Simply put:
> 
> *Bill of Rights* = God given, irrevocable,_ unalienable_, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
> *14th Amendment* = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
> 
> The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the *grantor of your Rights* are.  Creator or government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only because I don't agree with you.*  But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be infringed*_."
> 
> There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed.  The word infringe is synonymous with the word* limit:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> infringe
> 
> 
> infringe synonyms, antonyms, and related words in the Free Thesaurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freethesaurus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim *unalienable* and inalienable are the same thing.  Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be limited."*_
> 
> But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
> 
> "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the dicta in the case.  The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right.  From where did it come from?  It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that.  For example:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_. "   United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> Sounds pretty unlimited to me.  So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
> 
> "..._the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the *Fourteenth Amendment*, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms._.."
> _McDonald v. Chicago_, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
> 
> Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of _"rights"_ under that Amendment.  Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board.  BTW, go back to the Heller decision.  It says that "_like most rights_..."  Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere.  I just showed you where it happened.  So, you were ignorant.  You've been schooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is limiting your 2nd Amendment rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest immediate departure from the closest airport.  Delta is ready when you are!
> 
> Why do have less knowledge about the Constitution than a high school student with Google?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe what you just posted, you are the dumbest individual on USM.  I've worked on two cases that made it to the United States Supreme Court (insignificant cases in the grand scheme of things) and were won.  I have thirty six courtroom wins and never lost nor over-turned on appeal.  And your legal experience?
Click to expand...


Yeah, and if a frog could fly he would not bump hi ass. 

Tell me another lie!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was illegally ratified:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sweetliberty.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal.  What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights.  Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the *unalienable* Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence,  the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you _"Due Process_."
> 
> Simply put:
> 
> *Bill of Rights* = God given, irrevocable,_ unalienable_, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
> *14th Amendment* = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
> 
> The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the *grantor of your Rights* are.  Creator or government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only because I don't agree with you.*  But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be infringed*_."
> 
> There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed.  The word infringe is synonymous with the word* limit:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> infringe
> 
> 
> infringe synonyms, antonyms, and related words in the Free Thesaurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freethesaurus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim *unalienable* and inalienable are the same thing.  Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be limited."*_
> 
> But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
> 
> "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the dicta in the case.  The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right.  From where did it come from?  It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that.  For example:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_. "   United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> Sounds pretty unlimited to me.  So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
> 
> "..._the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the *Fourteenth Amendment*, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms._.."
> _McDonald v. Chicago_, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
> 
> Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of _"rights"_ under that Amendment.  Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board.  BTW, go back to the Heller decision.  It says that "_like most rights_..."  Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere.  I just showed you where it happened.  So, you were ignorant.  You've been schooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is limiting your 2nd Amendment rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest immediate departure from the closest airport.  Delta is ready when you are!
> 
> Why do have less knowledge about the Constitution than a high school student with Google?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe what you just posted, you are the dumbest individual on USM.  I've worked on two cases that made it to the United States Supreme Court (insignificant cases in the grand scheme of things) and were won.  I have thirty six courtroom wins and never lost nor over-turned on appeal.  And your legal experience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and if a frog could fly he would not bump hi ass.
> 
> Tell me another lie!
Click to expand...


Screw you.  You are a poseur that would wind up on the Wall of Shame if you were ever publicly identified.  I don't lie and I resent it when cowards make such claims, especially anonymously... which is a testament to their character.


----------



## Gdjjr




----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> You want to let one billion chinese move here?


Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.


----------



## Gdjjr

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

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

Either you believe those words, or you don't. There are no caveats. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

If you don't then you have to believe your rights are inalienable if you believe in rights at all- as in grants and privileges and can be taken by the granter- or, they can be installed on an assembly line while being assembled. That is, after all, a means of creating. Right?! How can you believe in sovereignty?

If you don't believe in rights then what do you believe in? Merit? Entitlement? What exactly entitles one to be thought superior over another? Who makes the decision(s) concerning those qualifications and what criteria is approved from where? Do you believe those who make those decisions for you are superior to you in any fashion? Do you also let them tell you what is or isn't successful? Do you get their permission to shower? Eat? Sleep? Drink? Do they tell you what to think? By what authority do they have that power? Was it granted? Inquiring minds want to know the answers to the questions asked and many more to come.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Porter Rockwell said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was illegally ratified:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sweetliberty.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal.  What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights.  Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the *unalienable* Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence,  the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you _"Due Process_."
> 
> Simply put:
> 
> *Bill of Rights* = God given, irrevocable,_ unalienable_, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
> *14th Amendment* = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
> 
> The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the *grantor of your Rights* are.  Creator or government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only because I don't agree with you.*  But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be infringed*_."
> 
> There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed.  The word infringe is synonymous with the word* limit:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> infringe
> 
> 
> infringe synonyms, antonyms, and related words in the Free Thesaurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freethesaurus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim *unalienable* and inalienable are the same thing.  Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be limited."*_
> 
> But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
> 
> "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the dicta in the case.  The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right.  From where did it come from?  It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that.  For example:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_. "   United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> Sounds pretty unlimited to me.  So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
> 
> "..._the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the *Fourteenth Amendment*, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms._.."
> _McDonald v. Chicago_, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
> 
> Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of _"rights"_ under that Amendment.  Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board.  BTW, go back to the Heller decision.  It says that "_like most rights_..."  Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere.  I just showed you where it happened.  So, you were ignorant.  You've been schooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is limiting your 2nd Amendment rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest immediate departure from the closest airport.  Delta is ready when you are!
> 
> Why do have less knowledge about the Constitution than a high school student with Google?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe what you just posted, you are the dumbest individual on USM.  I've worked on two cases that made it to the United States Supreme Court (insignificant cases in the grand scheme of things) and were won.  I have thirty six courtroom wins and never lost nor over-turned on appeal.  And your legal experience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and if a frog could fly he would not bump hi ass.
> 
> Tell me another lie!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Screw you.  You are a poseur that would wind up on the Wall of Shame if you were ever publicly identified.  I don't lie and I resent it when cowards make such claims, especially anonymously... which is a testament to their character.
Click to expand...


Yeah!  I am not the one with delusions of grandeur!

You would be laughed out of any high school classroom, much less a college.  Your posts belong in conspiracy theories because they are that looney tunes!

I have long considered putting you on ignore for idiocy above and beyond the call of duty.  Now, I guess you have provided further evidence.


You do realize that having multiple screen names is against the rules.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was illegally ratified:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sweetliberty.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal.  What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights.  Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the *unalienable* Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence,  the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you _"Due Process_."
> 
> Simply put:
> 
> *Bill of Rights* = God given, irrevocable,_ unalienable_, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
> *14th Amendment* = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
> 
> The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the *grantor of your Rights* are.  Creator or government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Only because I don't agree with you.*  But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be infringed*_."
> 
> There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed.  The word infringe is synonymous with the word* limit:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> infringe
> 
> 
> infringe synonyms, antonyms, and related words in the Free Thesaurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.freethesaurus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim *unalienable* and inalienable are the same thing.  Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
> 
> "_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,* shall not be limited."*_
> 
> But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
> 
> "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the dicta in the case.  The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right.  From where did it come from?  It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that.  For example:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_. "   United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> Sounds pretty unlimited to me.  So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
> 
> "..._the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the *Fourteenth Amendment*, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms._.."
> _McDonald v. Chicago_, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
> 
> Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of _"rights"_ under that Amendment.  Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board.  BTW, go back to the Heller decision.  It says that "_like most rights_..."  Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere.  I just showed you where it happened.  So, you were ignorant.  You've been schooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is limiting your 2nd Amendment rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest immediate departure from the closest airport.  Delta is ready when you are!
> 
> Why do have less knowledge about the Constitution than a high school student with Google?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe what you just posted, you are the dumbest individual on USM.  I've worked on two cases that made it to the United States Supreme Court (insignificant cases in the grand scheme of things) and were won.  I have thirty six courtroom wins and never lost nor over-turned on appeal.  And your legal experience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and if a frog could fly he would not bump hi ass.
> 
> Tell me another lie!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Screw you.  You are a poseur that would wind up on the Wall of Shame if you were ever publicly identified.  I don't lie and I resent it when cowards make such claims, especially anonymously... which is a testament to their character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah!  I am not the one with delusions of grandeur!
> 
> You would be laughed out of any high school classroom, much less a college.  Your posts belong in conspiracy theories because they are that looney tunes!
> 
> I have long considered putting you on ignore for idiocy above and beyond the call of duty.  Now, I guess you have provided further evidence.
Click to expand...


You are an idiot and a liar.  Please do put me on ignore so that I'm not subjected to your holier than thou B.S. and your inability to understand basic legal concepts.  Son, you were never in the Army.  If the Army was such a good place, you wouldn't need to use a Navy officer's name as your board name.  Thanks for the acknowledgment, however.  I was a Seabee.  

Insofar as "_delusions of grandeur_," that showed us what a low IQ you really have.  On more than one occasion I've offered critics the opportunity to come to my house OR to a public place near here and let's look at my actual files.  And grandeur?  I admitted the two big cases I worked on were insignificant (one was related to whether or not the government could prove that the defendant understood the law in the manner it was written - did he willfully disobey the law?  The other case was whether or not a county could charge fees in order for an organization to hold a public rally.)  But, on a resume' they do not ask for specifics.  If I had delusions of grandeur, I would not have mentioned what the cases were about.  

Since you have nothing, you have sunk to some very low depths (to use some Navy lingo.)  Trying to have a pissing match does nothing for this thread.  It only exposes your lack of any appreciable IQ.  I mean, how many IQ points does it take to initiate a pissing match simply because you don't like the facts and have* NOTHING* to counter them with?    If you have anything further to say to me not related to the topic, take it to PM.


----------



## Gdjjr

LOL- you go Porter- the er, admiral is a typical holier than thou student claiming to be a teacher- don't take it private- sell tickets and popcorn for the audience!


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just goes to show ya if you cut off all work arounds that  illegals use to get food stamps and all other kinds of services theyll self deport ...hammer employers on top illegal problem solved ...millions wont even bother to come in the first place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been standard fare for misguided people for years, but most undocumented foreigners never even attempt to get food stamps and / or services.  It's illegal and those who wanted the ultimate *POLICE STATE* gave us that National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify B.S. promising that would end it.  So many of my Rights have been taken over this issue and I don't feel safe and it isn't changing the bottom line.  Even when you disagree, you cannot change the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Misguided ....err nope ....no siree
> study after study over the years and even social workers who have opened thier  mouths .....bankrupt hospitals in texas and cali ...get across the border get a court date? ....heres a work permit, food stamps your even eligible for cash assistance and what's left of Medicaid...
> 
> Quite a few states have programs for when they skip that court date .....and the stamps continue ....even housing assistance
> 
> 
> I think you're the one who is misguided on it ....go find out for yourself
> 
> Put an end to social services for illegals ....it would make a huge dent in the problem ...
> 
> Arent you a tax is theft libertarian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm more of a constitutionalist that says what California does is California's business.  It's already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get social services and the federal government is under no obligation to help states fund people they can't afford.  Been hearing that broke hospital B.S. for nearly 30 years yet those hospitals are still going.
Click to expand...

Ok fine the hospitals are bullshit 

Social services ....its not just cali .  Thiers no denying or sugar coating it


----------



## basquebromance

it was not an immigrant picking strawberries at 8 bucks an hour who destroyed the economy in 2008. it was the crooks on Wall Street, my friends!


----------



## Wyatt earp

Gdjjr said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't need a wall if we opened the border region to hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't "need" a wall now- many want a wall- that is no need, but a desire- not much different than feeling superior for no good reason other than pure luck got you born here. A wall will require land confiscation from established citizens. It will cost more money that we don't have unless borrowed and adding to the insurmountable debt that your kids, kids, kids, kids, kids will be paying interest on and wondering why their ancestors were so free with OPM.
Click to expand...



Luck?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

basquebromance said:


> it was not an immigrant picking strawberries at 8 bucks an hour who destroyed the economy in 2008. it was the crooks on Wall Street, my friends!


The black guy, Franklin Rains destroyed the economy in 2008.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not possess the right to say, travel to Switzerland, if they do not want me there. It is their nation. They get to choose whether or not to allow me to travel there, and certainly whether or not to stay.
> 
> Likewise, Pedro, the Mexican, has not right to come here, against our wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> We're not Switzerland- and rights and wishes are not the same thing.
> Rights are inherent, not tangible. They are determined and exercised by the Individual. They can be restricted, but not stopped, taken or given.
> ALL men have certain unalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats. ...
Click to expand...


And included in those rights, is NOT the right to come to America.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just goes to show ya if you cut off all work arounds that  illegals use to get food stamps and all other kinds of services theyll self deport ...hammer employers on top illegal problem solved ...millions wont even bother to come in the first place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been standard fare for misguided people for years, but most undocumented foreigners never even attempt to get food stamps and / or services.  It's illegal and those who wanted the ultimate *POLICE STATE* gave us that National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify B.S. promising that would end it.  So many of my Rights have been taken over this issue and I don't feel safe and it isn't changing the bottom line.  Even when you disagree, you cannot change the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Misguided ....err nope ....no siree
> study after study over the years and even social workers who have opened thier  mouths .....bankrupt hospitals in texas and cali ...get across the border get a court date? ....heres a work permit, food stamps your even eligible for cash assistance and what's left of Medicaid...
> 
> Quite a few states have programs for when they skip that court date .....and the stamps continue ....even housing assistance
> 
> 
> I think you're the one who is misguided on it ....go find out for yourself
> 
> Put an end to social services for illegals ....it would make a huge dent in the problem ...
> 
> Arent you a tax is theft libertarian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm more of a constitutionalist that says what California does is California's business.  It's already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get social services and the federal government is under no obligation to help states fund people they can't afford.  Been hearing that broke hospital B.S. for nearly 30 years yet those hospitals are still going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok fine the hospitals are bullshit
> 
> Social services ....its not just cali .  Thiers no denying or sugar coating it
Click to expand...


Here is where I stand:

I've worked in and around this issue for nearly* FOUR DECADES*.  In terms of practical experience I have no superiors and damn few equals.  AND, I've been on all sides of the issue with the intent of having established the credibility to speak out.  So, is there a problem?  Yes.  No nation can survive an amalgamation of races, cultures, religions, political points of view, etc.  At the same time, the right got conned by the left and is now proposing solutions that WILL NOT WORK.


Correll said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not possess the right to say, travel to Switzerland, if they do not want me there. It is their nation. They get to choose whether or not to allow me to travel there, and certainly whether or not to stay.
> 
> Likewise, Pedro, the Mexican, has not right to come here, against our wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> We're not Switzerland- and rights and wishes are not the same thing.
> Rights are inherent, not tangible. They are determined and exercised by the Individual. They can be restricted, but not stopped, taken or given.
> ALL men have certain unalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And included in those rights, is NOT the right to come to America.
Click to expand...


The Right to Liberty has a meaning.  Like the Second Amendment guarantee to keep and bear Arms (which helps the people enforce the Right to Liberty)  the Right to Liberty was a Right that preexisted before the Constitution was written.  I want you to look at two older court rulings.  Note that they do not limit Rights to citizens, but maintain the Right for *individuals*:

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


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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Gdjjr said:


> LOL- you go Porter- the er, admiral is a typical holier than thou student claiming to be a teacher- don't take it private- sell tickets and popcorn for the audience!



After I fought back at his silliness, I watched him try to provoke another poster over their board name.  He can't stay on point.  This stuff is just entertainment for a guy that apparently has no real life.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocritically sovereign for sure. The fed gov't (and its elite employees) refuse to recognize sovereign unless/until they feel they can bullshit people about invading sovereign countries with lame excuses- they don't recognize sovereign states at home and they certainly don't recognize sovereignty of a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you do not do business with the Chinese, they have no reason to come here.  Never ask the government to do something for you that you can do better, and less costly, on your own.
Click to expand...



That was not an answer, that was a dodge.

You want to let one billion chinese move here?


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Gdjjr said:


>


Do those words apply to any human in Mexico ,western europe ,Russia ,....nope


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocritically sovereign for sure. The fed gov't (and its elite employees) refuse to recognize sovereign unless/until they feel they can bullshit people about invading sovereign countries with lame excuses- they don't recognize sovereign states at home and they certainly don't recognize sovereignty of a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you do not do business with the Chinese, they have no reason to come here.  Never ask the government to do something for you that you can do better, and less costly, on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not an answer, that was a dodge.
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
Click to expand...


They wouldn't move here if the country was run the way I think it should be run.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
Click to expand...



His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.


Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocritically sovereign for sure. The fed gov't (and its elite employees) refuse to recognize sovereign unless/until they feel they can bullshit people about invading sovereign countries with lame excuses- they don't recognize sovereign states at home and they certainly don't recognize sovereignty of a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you do not do business with the Chinese, they have no reason to come here.  Never ask the government to do something for you that you can do better, and less costly, on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not an answer, that was a dodge.
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They wouldn't move here if the country was run the way I think it should be run.
Click to expand...


Weill if your plan to get rid of illegals doesnt include cutting off thier bevy of welfare benefits whatcha got...


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.


You're seeing what you want to see. Can you point out specific wording that leads to that feeling?


----------



## Gdjjr

bear513 said:


> Luck?


What do you call being born here?


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> You want to let one billion chinese move here?


That is a straw man argument. If a billion anyone wanted to move here they would have already


----------



## Gdjjr

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Do those words apply to any human in Mexico ,western europe ,Russia ,....nope


This isn't western europe, or russia- so you tell me what they apply to.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> 
> You're seeing what you want to see. Can you point out specific wording that leads to that feeling?
Click to expand...



It was not a feeling. It is his stated position that all people have the "liberty" to move into, at least, American territory.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Gdjjr said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Luck?
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call being born here?
Click to expand...


That's luck?


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a straw man argument. If a billion anyone wanted to move here they would have already
Click to expand...



iF we adopt his beliefs system, ie that the government does not have the power to limit people's movement into the country,

how many foreigners, do you think would move here, then? 


And do you want that?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.
Click to expand...


Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocritically sovereign for sure. The fed gov't (and its elite employees) refuse to recognize sovereign unless/until they feel they can bullshit people about invading sovereign countries with lame excuses- they don't recognize sovereign states at home and they certainly don't recognize sovereignty of a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you do not do business with the Chinese, they have no reason to come here.  Never ask the government to do something for you that you can do better, and less costly, on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not an answer, that was a dodge.
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They wouldn't move here if the country was run the way I think it should be run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weill if your plan to get rid of illegals doesnt include cutting off thier bevy of welfare benefits whatcha got...
Click to expand...


It is already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get benefits.  You guys already screwed us out of the Fourth Amendment with the promise that was going to stop it.  Why not just tell the truth?  If the cost were the Bill of Rights to get what you want, you would gladly give it up.  You've already got a start - and one that set constitutionalists back 50 years.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?
Click to expand...




Sure. All the time. 


Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,


telling what part of their stated position I  "lied" about.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> 
> You're seeing what you want to see. Can you point out specific wording that leads to that feeling?
Click to expand...


Thank you for the support.  So far I've talked about two things that anti-Liberty advocates refuse to acknowledge:

1)  I've discussed regulation

2)  I've talked about returning to the way things were when America was great.  Let's see what laws we can eliminate that will put America back into that position when we were great and prospering.  We're never going to talk specifics because the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE *advocates want a militarized dictatorship.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. All the time.
> 
> 
> Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,
> 
> 
> telling what part of their stated position I  "lied" about.
Click to expand...


Well I proved that you lied.  See my previous post.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. All the time.
> 
> 
> Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,
> 
> 
> telling what part of their stated position I  "lied" about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I proved that you lied.  See my previous post.
Click to expand...



Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocritically sovereign for sure. The fed gov't (and its elite employees) refuse to recognize sovereign unless/until they feel they can bullshit people about invading sovereign countries with lame excuses- they don't recognize sovereign states at home and they certainly don't recognize sovereignty of a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you do not do business with the Chinese, they have no reason to come here.  Never ask the government to do something for you that you can do better, and less costly, on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not an answer, that was a dodge.
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They wouldn't move here if the country was run the way I think it should be run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weill if your plan to get rid of illegals doesnt include cutting off thier bevy of welfare benefits whatcha got...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get benefits.  You guys already screwed us out of the Fourth Amendment with the promise that was going to stop it.  Why not just tell the truth?  If the cost were the Bill of Rights to get what you want, you would gladly give it up.  You've already got a start - and one that set constitutionalists back 50 years.
Click to expand...

But they still get them by hundreds of billions
I told ya  try not to dance around it 

So what's your plan ...ya said ya had a plan


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> how many foreigners, do you think would move here, then?


It's immaterial. I don't care. You made a claim, I rebutted it- that is what is material.


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter Rockwell said:


> Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?


Edited- wrong person.


----------



## Gdjjr

Deplorable Yankee said:


> So what's your plan ...ya said ya had a plan


He presented it earlier in this thread- reading simple English is not supposed to be difficult.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. All the time.
> 
> 
> Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,
> 
> 
> telling what part of their stated position I  "lied" about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I proved that you lied.  See my previous post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.
Click to expand...


Here's the real deal:

I've been* IN *this discussion for decades now.  With the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters - whatever you want to call them, they go on the attack like you did.  Nobody asks questions nor for clarifications.  It has been easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that was never told before.  The first fact that you should know, going in, I am a constitutionalist.  That being said, I'm going to start with three presuppositions.  You tell me where you think I get it wrong:

1)  Without a wall and without federal immigration laws, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in the annals of history

2)  The terminology Make America Great Again means, at some point, America *WAS* great

3)  During this period of becoming great there was not a wall around America; the Chinese came here to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered; the foreigners you fear did not pose a threat (otherwise we could not have built the Republic we have.)

Let's find out where you think I'm wrong from a *factual* point of view.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. All the time.
> 
> 
> Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,
> 
> 
> telling what part of their stated position I  "lied" about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I proved that you lied.  See my previous post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the real deal:
> 
> I've been* IN *this discussion for decades now.  With the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters - whatever you want to call them, they go on the attack like you did.  Nobody asks questions nor for clarifications.  It has been easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that was never told before.  The first fact that you should know, going in, I am a constitutionalist.  That being said, I'm going to start with three presuppositions.  You tell me where you think I get it wrong:
> 
> 1)  Without a wall and without federal immigration laws, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in the annals of history
> 
> 2)  The terminology Make America Great Again means, at some point, America *WAS* great
> 
> 3)  During this period of becoming great there was not a wall around America; the Chinese came here to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered; the foreigners you fear did not pose a threat (otherwise we could not have built the Republic we have.)
> 
> Let's find out where you think I'm wrong from a *factual* point of view.
Click to expand...



1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.

2. The foreigners did pose a threat, steps were taken to deal with it.

3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> what might have happened


NO! Laws are supposed to punish criminal action- instead, in Police State US of A, we punish for what "might happen" which is based on IF- which is mind reading or fortune telling- not actions that did happen.


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> 1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.


And severely abused, just like the Irish, the Italians, The jews, and Indians. Where is the line drawn?



> First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
> Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
> Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
> Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


They will come for you. It's not if only when. They favor only their click- and I ain't talking foreigners.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> what might have happened
> 
> 
> 
> NO! Laws are supposed to punish criminal action- instead, in Police State US of A, we punish for what "might happen" which is based on IF- which is mind reading or fortune telling- not actions that did happen.
Click to expand...



YOu are talking my point out of context. I am not calling for punishing anyone based on what might have happened.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> And severely abused, just like the Irish, the Italians, The jews, and Indians. Where is the line drawn?
> ...
Click to expand...



Where ever we want. It is our choice. Or it should be, if our political class were not betraying US.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Gdjjr said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your plan ...ya said ya had a plan
> 
> 
> 
> He presented it earlier in this thread- reading simple English is not supposed to be difficult.
Click to expand...


Ya mean I gotta look for it i didnt read all his post ... flat out denying illegals get benefits is kinda dishonest ...when you dont acknowledge a fact and avoid it like the plauge while using a simplistic leftist taking point ....illegals dont get benifits it's illegal 

you tell me what's his grand plan ?

And blaming trump for the militarization of the police is super lame and shows a biased and ignorance beyond belief


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> 3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing *what might have happened* if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.


What do you call that? Or your question about 1 billion Chinese?


----------



## Gdjjr

Deplorable Yankee said:


> you tell me what's his grand plan ?


Reading is good for you.



Deplorable Yankee said:


> And blaming trump for the militarization of the police is super lame and shows a biased and ignorance beyond belief


And I want you to show where anyone did as you claim above. 
FYI, I've been posting Police State articles a long time- but, again, they have to be read.

I'll be nice and provide you with a source I get them from- but you have to read. I know it's difficult, but, remember, nothing worth having is easy- that includes knowledge- his articles usually have links (which require more reading) to verify his assertions.

You're welcome.


----------



## Jitss617

I’m ready


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

A lot of older commies and national socialist  still masquerade as middle of the roaders and libertarians .....they never broke the old habit


Correll said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a straw man argument. If a billion anyone wanted to move here they would have already
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> iF we adopt his beliefs system, ie that the government does not have the power to limit people's movement into the country,
> 
> how many foreigners, do you think would move here, then?
> 
> 
> And do you want that?
Click to expand...

No wonder why he denys it lol
Without cutting off the billions in benifits  they get and hammering employers theyll never stop 

Cut off all social service for illegals ...many will self deport many will never bother to come ....it really is that simple to make a big dent in the illegal problem 

Why do they think europe is also being over run ...almost instant benifits 

It's a bad troll or he could be an older lefty 

Older lefties Commies and national socialist ...some were really good at wrapping themselves in the flag,constitution, and then proceed to pass them selves off in the middle of the road.....its just like thier usual it's no big deal argument in drag 
And it's not even aimed at us  ...its always aimed at the normies...for a reason .
And why they ignore facts coming from us  ...it really is an old leftie tactic 

You'll hear the same shit outta some libertarians to 
Guys like this turn millions of upon millions of americans off to libertarians 
what's to talk about if they dont even wanna acknowledge a simple fact anyway ...


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing *what might have happened* if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call that? Or your question about 1 billion Chinese?
Click to expand...



Not a punishment, if that is what you mean.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Gdjjr said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> you tell me what's his grand plan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Reading is good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> And blaming trump for the militarization of the police is super lame and shows a biased and ignorance beyond belief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I want you to show where anyone did as you claim above.
> FYI, I've been posting Police State articles a long time- but, again, they have to be read.
> 
> I'll be nice and provide you with a source I get them from- but you have to read. I know it's difficult, but, remember, nothing worth having is easy- that includes knowledge- his articles usually have links (which require more reading) to verify his assertions.
> 
> You're welcome.
Click to expand...



You're not the only one whose been around Cato when they first stole I cant remember the guys name it was 2 decades before hand
Who was the guy who started the police watch news feed Cato stole it and  ruined it? They would do a weekly release  ...


I read a lot of articles here ...I do skip comments when they're dancing around issues cause they're simply full of shit

You're welcome


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. All the time.
> 
> 
> Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,
> 
> 
> telling what part of their stated position I  "lied" about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I proved that you lied.  See my previous post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the real deal:
> 
> I've been* IN *this discussion for decades now.  With the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters - whatever you want to call them, they go on the attack like you did.  Nobody asks questions nor for clarifications.  It has been easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that was never told before.  The first fact that you should know, going in, I am a constitutionalist.  That being said, I'm going to start with three presuppositions.  You tell me where you think I get it wrong:
> 
> 1)  Without a wall and without federal immigration laws, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in the annals of history
> 
> 2)  The terminology Make America Great Again means, at some point, America *WAS* great
> 
> 3)  During this period of becoming great there was not a wall around America; the Chinese came here to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered; the foreigners you fear did not pose a threat (otherwise we could not have built the Republic we have.)
> 
> Let's find out where you think I'm wrong from a *factual* point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.
> 
> 2. The foreigners did pose a threat, steps were taken to deal with it.
> 
> 3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.
Click to expand...


1)  The first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact in 1630.  The first laws restricting Chinese immigration were in *1882* almost a century after the ratification of the United States Constitution.  Okay so, we'll put the Chinese immigration ban back in place

2)  What "_threat_" did the foreigners pose that you are reference to and when?

3)  You final response is more of an attempt to try and be dishonest by answering questions that haven't been asked and trying to preempt any honest discussion.  I don't think that foreigners coming to the United States did anything to promote the growth of the nation.  It helped industrialize it, but we'd be fine to not have the level of technology we have today.  I think you want to derail the discussion before it starts.  Presume nothing.  I'm not who or what you think I am.  But I digress.

Do you know the exact reason that the Chinese were excluded from coming into the United States?

In your opinion, WHO was the government trying to protect?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your plan ...ya said ya had a plan
> 
> 
> 
> He presented it earlier in this thread- reading simple English is not supposed to be difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya mean I gotta look for it i didnt read all his post ... flat out denying illegals get benefits is kinda dishonest ...when you dont acknowledge a fact and avoid it like the plauge while using a simplistic leftist taking point ....illegals dont get benifits it's illegal
> 
> you tell me what's his grand plan ?
> 
> And blaming trump for the militarization of the police is super lame and shows a biased and ignorance beyond belief
Click to expand...


You don't read much and what you do read, you don't understand.  I've not said ANY of what you claim.  Two things:  The mind is like a parachute; it only works when it's open and
"_He who answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a shame and folly unto him_."  Proverbs 18 : 13

I have worked in this field for four decades.  That cannot be reduced to a few simple posts of three or four paragraphs - which (if you actually read this thread) is the limit of over half the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters that criticize me can handle.  

Your bias against the Constitution; you're closed mind; your refusal to admit that you don't have all the answers is keeping you from participating in this thread in a constructive manner.  Think about that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> A lot of older commies and national socialist  still masquerade as middle of the roaders and libertarians .....they never broke the old habit
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a straw man argument. If a billion anyone wanted to move here they would have already
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> iF we adopt his beliefs system, ie that the government does not have the power to limit people's movement into the country,
> 
> how many foreigners, do you think would move here, then?
> 
> 
> And do you want that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No wonder why he denys it lol
> Without cutting off the billions in benifits  they get and hammering employers theyll never stop
> 
> Cut off all social service for illegals ...many will self deport many will never bother to come ....it really is that simple to make a big dent in the illegal problem
> 
> Why do they think europe is also being over run ...almost instant benifits
> 
> It's a bad troll or he could be an older lefty
> 
> Older lefties Commies and national socialist ...some were really good at wrapping themselves in the flag,constitution, and then proceed to pass them selves off in the middle of the road.....its just like thier usual it's no big deal argument in drag
> And it's not even aimed at us  ...its always aimed at the normies...for a reason .
> And why they ignore facts coming from us  ...it really is an old leftie tactic
> 
> You'll hear the same shit outta some libertarians to
> Guys like this turn millions of upon millions of americans off to libertarians
> what's to talk about if they dont even wanna acknowledge a simple fact anyway ...
Click to expand...


If you believe the B.S. you're posting about me, you should sue your brains for non-support.  I've been tolerant of your bullshit to a point, but even I have limits.  There is not a swinging dick on the face of this earth that really believes that I am left wing, socialist, communist or anything close.  The scars on my body are constant reminders of the price I've paid for fighting the people you associate me with.  The fact that your education level becomes obvious when you misspell words like denies tells me that I should strive to be more tolerant of your ignorance. 

*LONG* before your dumb ass came along, I was manning the border.  Long before you ever thought about this topic I was ghost writing articles for Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr (US Army) in the late 1970s and 1980s.  Mohr  was the first American captured during the Korean Conflict.  He was beaten, tortured and sentenced to death, only to escape and go on to fight and then write Army manuals on brainwashing techniques and psychopolitics.  Mohr was on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society and he was a co-founder of the Militia of Georgia - as was I.

Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s Mohr was keeping up with undocumented foreigners on the border and he was convinced, based on reports and intel that we were getting, that the Soviets had specially trained Cubans in Mexico, sneaking into the United States and starting sleeper cells, ready to take America down.  There were the allegations of helicopters from Mexico flying over Brownsville, Texas and estimates of* two million undocumented foreigners* entering the United States per year.  It's been four decades of me analyzing what I've read and poring over mountains of material I collected in think tanks over that time so that I know what is factual and what is outright bullshit.  And I'll tell you right now, there was a time when people *KNEW* the extent of both my commitment to this country and the base of knowledge from which I worked.  You don't.  I can tell every poster right now, you don't know when a globalist, communist or lefty (you couldn't spell that one right either) puts crap in your head that you've been too ignorant to verify.   So, without searching the Internet for hours, who do you think the lefties rely on for tactics and then reference where what I write takes you back to left wing propaganda?   In other words, cite the sources for your allegations.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. All the time.
> 
> 
> Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,
> 
> 
> telling what part of their stated position I  "lied" about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I proved that you lied.  See my previous post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the real deal:
> 
> I've been* IN *this discussion for decades now.  With the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters - whatever you want to call them, they go on the attack like you did.  Nobody asks questions nor for clarifications.  It has been easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that was never told before.  The first fact that you should know, going in, I am a constitutionalist.  That being said, I'm going to start with three presuppositions.  You tell me where you think I get it wrong:
> 
> 1)  Without a wall and without federal immigration laws, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in the annals of history
> 
> 2)  The terminology Make America Great Again means, at some point, America *WAS* great
> 
> 3)  During this period of becoming great there was not a wall around America; the Chinese came here to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered; the foreigners you fear did not pose a threat (otherwise we could not have built the Republic we have.)
> 
> Let's find out where you think I'm wrong from a *factual* point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.
> 
> 2. The foreigners did pose a threat, steps were taken to deal with it.
> 
> 3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact in 1630.  The first laws restricting Chinese immigration were in *1882* almost a century after the ratification of the United States Constitution.  Okay so, we'll put the Chinese immigration ban back in place
> 
> 2)  What "_threat_" did the foreigners pose that you are reference to and when?
> 
> 3)  You final response is more of an attempt to try and be dishonest by answering questions that haven't been asked and trying to preempt any honest discussion.  I don't think that foreigners coming to the United States did anything to promote the growth of the nation.  It helped industrialize it, but we'd be fine to not have the level of technology we have today.  I think you want to derail the discussion before it starts.  Presume nothing.  I'm not who or what you think I am.  But I digress.
> 
> Do you know the exact reason that the Chinese were excluded from coming into the United States?
> 
> In your opinion, WHO was the government trying to protect?
Click to expand...



So, in 1631, where the pilgrims were a few score of people starving and freezing and in danger of being wiped out from possibly hostile locals, AND, few if any chinamen, knew of their existence or location, or had any possibly way of reaching them, 


since at that time, as they were struggling to live from day to day, since at that time, they did not pass laws against immigration into tiny, tiny community,


that is part of your argument as to unlimited movement being part of the package of God Given Rights?


With all due respect, that is not a convincing argument.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. All the time.
> 
> 
> Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,
> 
> 
> telling what part of their stated position I  "lied" about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I proved that you lied.  See my previous post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the real deal:
> 
> I've been* IN *this discussion for decades now.  With the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters - whatever you want to call them, they go on the attack like you did.  Nobody asks questions nor for clarifications.  It has been easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that was never told before.  The first fact that you should know, going in, I am a constitutionalist.  That being said, I'm going to start with three presuppositions.  You tell me where you think I get it wrong:
> 
> 1)  Without a wall and without federal immigration laws, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in the annals of history
> 
> 2)  The terminology Make America Great Again means, at some point, America *WAS* great
> 
> 3)  During this period of becoming great there was not a wall around America; the Chinese came here to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered; the foreigners you fear did not pose a threat (otherwise we could not have built the Republic we have.)
> 
> Let's find out where you think I'm wrong from a *factual* point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.
> 
> 2. The foreigners did pose a threat, steps were taken to deal with it.
> 
> 3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact in 1630.  The first laws restricting Chinese immigration were in *1882* almost a century after the ratification of the United States Constitution.  Okay so, we'll put the Chinese immigration ban back in place
> 
> 2)  What "_threat_" did the foreigners pose that you are reference to and when?
> 
> 3)  You final response is more of an attempt to try and be dishonest by answering questions that haven't been asked and trying to preempt any honest discussion.  I don't think that foreigners coming to the United States did anything to promote the growth of the nation.  It helped industrialize it, but we'd be fine to not have the level of technology we have today.  I think you want to derail the discussion before it starts.  Presume nothing.  I'm not who or what you think I am.  But I digress.
> 
> Do you know the exact reason that the Chinese were excluded from coming into the United States?
> 
> In your opinion, WHO was the government trying to protect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, in 1631, where the pilgrims were a few score of people starving and freezing and in danger of being wiped out from possibly hostile locals, AND, few if any chinamen, knew of their existence or location, or had any possibly way of reaching them,
> 
> 
> since at that time, as they were struggling to live from day to day, since at that time, they did not pass laws against immigration into tiny, tiny community,
> 
> 
> that is part of your argument as to unlimited movement being part of the package of God Given Rights?
> 
> 
> With all due respect, that is not a convincing argument.
Click to expand...

My ancestors didn't even come in that way.
They came in the 1st or 2nd wave after Columbus.
I tell you what the rule was:
Either you made it, or you didn't. My people made it. Probably due to hard-headedness or something.

Oh yeah, and willingness to clear swaths of acres and plant intelligently.

And at times hunt for food to feed everybody.

Also fishing.. MMmm, fishing.

My cousin may have some 6-foot Canadian Moose Elk thing protruding from his wall, but I know deep down, he really likes to fish.

-A cracker that knows how it really is.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is not even the majority portion of the Declaration.   You cannot even begin to cogently discuss such a document without an understanding of its entirety. So stop.  It doesn't apply to the world.  

Today's Intolerable Acts would be a complaint and demand that the border be closed and all invaders expelled.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Not that the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters will read this, but none of them have a clue as to where I stand, personally, on this issue.

Presuming that America was a great nation, then there were some uncomfortable truths that the anti - Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters have to come to grips with.  Most of their arguments have revolved around this mantra that they don't care whether you're black, white, Muslim, etc. - you can come to America provided you do so "_legally._"  It annoys me to no end that they have NO idea what they are advocating for.  They have a very narrow objective - get rid of people they call "_illegal aliens_" and I vehemently object to that kind of language because those bigots cannot fathom the value of the idea of a  _presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty_.  Then again, none of them have had their Rights ignored and their life at stake over some political issue.  They are not educated enough to understand the 14th Amendment's wording that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the "_equal protection of the laws_."  Common sense flies over the heads of people like this.  For if the foreigner is an illegal alien, absent Due Process, then each and every one of those critics on this thread are domestic terrorists / enemy combatants (presumed guilty) because the critics made this a legal v. illegal issue.

The admonitions of the founders / framers are lost on the anti - Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters.  Outside of a very narrow objective, they cannot tell you with any clarity about the America they envision for the future.  If they can, they are too scared, embarrassed, or dishonest to discuss it civilly.  One thing they can't see:  they are not in charge and what they wish on others, they are wishing on themselves.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Tipsycatlover said:


> The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is not even the majority portion of the Declaration.   You cannot even begin to cogently discuss such a document without an understanding of its entirety. So stop.  It doesn't apply to the world.
> 
> Today's Intolerable Acts would be a complaint and demand that the border be closed and all invaders expelled.



The Preamble is what it is.  A preamble is an introduction.  You might be right, but now is the time to lay your cards on the table.  I'm challenging the Anti- - Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters to lay their cards on the table.  I'm willing to lay all mine on the table - no deflections, no name calling, no trying to tell the other guy what he is, just lay your cards on the table.  I'll even throw in a freebie for good faith.

Tipsycatlover may have a point.  The Declaration of Independence, despite its talk of all men being created equal does talk about the "_ravages of the savages_."  Thomas Jefferson was, at the very least a closet negrophilist.  His arch enemy, Alexander Hamilton used to kill Indians as if they were rodents that didn't warrant any consideration.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind.  It was all about the Intolerable Acts.  It was a document that said This is what you did and now we're leaving you.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds that have connected them with one another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature's God entitle them...

This is a declaration of the equality of nations.  Not of men.  The United States declares it will be separate from the nation of the Crown and intends to be its equal.   Men are created equal so we recognize no king to have authority over us.

It has nothing to do with removing our borders and allowing a tidal wave of humanity to swamp us.  If Jefferson and Hamilton were alive today they would open the border to hunting.  Pay a bounty.  Hmmm that means taking something to prove the worth of the bounty.  What would be a good Trophy? ?   I know.  A scalp!  That's something the founders would approve of.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. All the time.
> 
> 
> Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,
> 
> 
> telling what part of their stated position I  "lied" about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I proved that you lied.  See my previous post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the real deal:
> 
> I've been* IN *this discussion for decades now.  With the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters - whatever you want to call them, they go on the attack like you did.  Nobody asks questions nor for clarifications.  It has been easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that was never told before.  The first fact that you should know, going in, I am a constitutionalist.  That being said, I'm going to start with three presuppositions.  You tell me where you think I get it wrong:
> 
> 1)  Without a wall and without federal immigration laws, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in the annals of history
> 
> 2)  The terminology Make America Great Again means, at some point, America *WAS* great
> 
> 3)  During this period of becoming great there was not a wall around America; the Chinese came here to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered; the foreigners you fear did not pose a threat (otherwise we could not have built the Republic we have.)
> 
> Let's find out where you think I'm wrong from a *factual* point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.
> 
> 2. The foreigners did pose a threat, steps were taken to deal with it.
> 
> 3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact in 1630.  The first laws restricting Chinese immigration were in *1882* almost a century after the ratification of the United States Constitution.  Okay so, we'll put the Chinese immigration ban back in place
> 
> 2)  What "_threat_" did the foreigners pose that you are reference to and when?
> 
> 3)  You final response is more of an attempt to try and be dishonest by answering questions that haven't been asked and trying to preempt any honest discussion.  I don't think that foreigners coming to the United States did anything to promote the growth of the nation.  It helped industrialize it, but we'd be fine to not have the level of technology we have today.  I think you want to derail the discussion before it starts.  Presume nothing.  I'm not who or what you think I am.  But I digress.
> 
> Do you know the exact reason that the Chinese were excluded from coming into the United States?
> 
> In your opinion, WHO was the government trying to protect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, in 1631, where the pilgrims were a few score of people starving and freezing and in danger of being wiped out from possibly hostile locals, AND, few if any chinamen, knew of their existence or location, or had any possibly way of reaching them,
> 
> 
> since at that time, as they were struggling to live from day to day, since at that time, they did not pass laws against immigration into tiny, tiny community,
> 
> 
> that is part of your argument as to unlimited movement being part of the package of God Given Rights?
> 
> 
> With all due respect, that is not a convincing argument.
Click to expand...



I've made *NO* argument.  You started with the Chinese people.  So, are we talking Chinese or immigration?  I offer you an opportunity to have an honest and civil discussion based upon *not doing *what you just did.  So, you don't have anything save of straw man arguments, B.S. allegations that a drunk monkey couldn't believe if he could understand what you said, and attempts to put words into my mouth?   You are desperate.  

But, for those with a tad bit more IQ than Correll, there were some laws in place in the early colonies that *would lead* to immigration laws.  Correll is in the dark and is waiting for me to say something he can criticize because past the objective of fighting so - called _"illegal aliens_," he doesn't have a plan, an ultimate goal, or a vision of what America would be if he were in charge.  I don't have that problem.  But, I know his arguments because I was there, in the think tank, that pioneered them.  I know which arguments are factual and which were political.  Correll realizes that I can point out the flaws in his thinking, but he cannot find a chink in the armor of someone who does not spew left or right wing swill.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Tipsycatlover said:


> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind.  It was all about the Intolerable Acts.  It was a document that said This is what you did and now we're leaving you.
> 
> When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds that have connected them with one another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature's God entitle them...
> 
> This is a declaration of the equality of nations.  Not of men.  The United States declares it will be separate from the nation of the Crown and intends to be its equal.   Men are created equal so we recognize no king to have authority over us.
> 
> It has nothing to do with removing our borders and allowing a tidal wave of humanity to swamp us.  If Jefferson and Hamilton were alive today they would open the border to hunting.  Pay a bounty.  Hmmm that means taking something to prove the worth of the bounty.  What would be a good Trophy? ?   I know.  A scalp!  That's something the founders would approve of.



You flunked history.  Hamilton would have a field day, but you didn't know Jefferson.  The Declaration of Independence is about one thing that could sum up America in one word:  *Liberty*.    Let's start you off with some history at a level you can start learning from:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003U661UE/?tag=ff0d01-20

Don't be ashamed to watch it.  I used to watch it with the foster kids I took in  a few years back, and enjoy it until I played it one too many times.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Porter Rockwell said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind.  It was all about the Intolerable Acts.  It was a document that said This is what you did and now we're leaving you.
> 
> When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds that have connected them with one another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature's God entitle them...
> 
> This is a declaration of the equality of nations.  Not of men.  The United States declares it will be separate from the nation of the Crown and intends to be its equal.   Men are created equal so we recognize no king to have authority over us.
> 
> It has nothing to do with removing our borders and allowing a tidal wave of humanity to swamp us.  If Jefferson and Hamilton were alive today they would open the border to hunting.  Pay a bounty.  Hmmm that means taking something to prove the worth of the bounty.  What would be a good Trophy? ?   I know.  A scalp!  That's something the founders would approve of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You flunked history.  Hamilton would have a field day, but you didn't know Jefferson.  The Declaration of Independence is about one thing that could sum up America in one word:  *Liberty*.    Let's start you off with some history at a level you can start learning from:
> 
> Robot Check
> 
> Don't be ashamed to watch it.  I used to watch it with the foster kids I took in  a few years back, and enjoy it until I played it one too many times.
Click to expand...

I knew Jefferson Personally.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive.  Liberty is the product of freedom.  Equality is the product of tyranny.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Are these people for real???  Even as recently as the Heller v. D.c. decision, the United States Supreme Court admitted that our Rights were codified into law... but, codified by what?

The Bill of Rights









						The Relationship Between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - Independence Institute
					

I’m sometimes asked about the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Their connection is not difficult to understand. The Declaration is a statement based on natural law. Natural law consists of fundamental principles of justice and right. Monotheists see...




					i2i.org
				












						Individual Rights- The Declaration of Independence & the Bil
					

Individual Rights- The Declaration of Independence & the Bill of Rights Resources Used Caroline Neal 4th Period http://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-resonsibilities




					prezi.com


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of older commies and national socialist  still masquerade as middle of the roaders and libertarians .....they never broke the old habit
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a straw man argument. If a billion anyone wanted to move here they would have already
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> iF we adopt his beliefs system, ie that the government does not have the power to limit people's movement into the country,
> 
> how many foreigners, do you think would move here, then?
> 
> 
> And do you want that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No wonder why he denys it lol
> Without cutting off the billions in benifits  they get and hammering employers theyll never stop
> 
> Cut off all social service for illegals ...many will self deport many will never bother to come ....it really is that simple to make a big dent in the illegal problem
> 
> Why do they think europe is also being over run ...almost instant benifits
> 
> It's a bad troll or he could be an older lefty
> 
> Older lefties Commies and national socialist ...some were really good at wrapping themselves in the flag,constitution, and then proceed to pass them selves off in the middle of the road.....its just like thier usual it's no big deal argument in drag
> And it's not even aimed at us  ...its always aimed at the normies...for a reason .
> And why they ignore facts coming from us  ...it really is an old leftie tactic
> 
> You'll hear the same shit outta some libertarians to
> Guys like this turn millions of upon millions of americans off to libertarians
> what's to talk about if they dont even wanna acknowledge a simple fact anyway ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe the B.S. you're posting about me, you should sue your brains for non-support.  I've been tolerant of your bullshit to a point, but even I have limits.  There is not a swinging dick on the face of this earth that really believes that I am left wing, socialist, communist or anything close.  The scars on my body are constant reminders of the price I've paid for fighting the people you associate me with.  The fact that your education level becomes obvious when you misspell words like denies tells me that I should strive to be more tolerant of your ignorance.
> 
> *LONG* before your dumb ass came along, I was manning the border.  Long before you ever thought about this topic I was ghost writing articles for Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr (US Army) in the late 1970s and 1980s.  Mohr  was the first American captured during the Korean Conflict.  He was beaten, tortured and sentenced to death, only to escape and go on to fight and then write Army manuals on brainwashing techniques and psychopolitics.  Mohr was on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society and he was a co-founder of the Militia of Georgia - as was I.
> 
> Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s Mohr was keeping up with undocumented foreigners on the border and he was convinced, based on reports and intel that we were getting, that the Soviets had specially trained Cubans in Mexico, sneaking into the United States and starting sleeper cells, ready to take America down.  There were the allegations of helicopters from Mexico flying over Brownsville, Texas and estimates of* two million undocumented foreigners* entering the United States per year.  It's been four decades of me analyzing what I've read and poring over mountains of material I collected in think tanks over that time so that I know what is factual and what is outright bullshit.  And I'll tell you right now, there was a time when people *KNEW* the extent of both my commitment to this country and the base of knowledge from which I worked.  You don't.  I can tell every poster right now, you don't know when a globalist, communist or lefty (you couldn't spell that one right either) puts crap in your head that you've been too ignorant to verify.   So, without searching the Internet for hours, who do you think the lefties rely on for tactics and then reference where what I write takes you back to left wing propaganda?   In other words, cite the sources for your allegations.
Click to expand...

Uh boy
Really lol


Ya didnt say
"They wouldn't move here if the country was run the way I think it should be run."

What's your plan ? Let's hear it

And please dont say illegals dont use billions upon billions of social service dollars ...why not be an honest fry station guy instead


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Gdjjr said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> you tell me what's his grand plan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Reading is good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> And blaming trump for the militarization of the police is super lame and shows a biased and ignorance beyond belief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I want you to show where anyone did as you claim above.
> FYI, I've been posting Police State articles a long time- but, again, they have to be read.
> 
> I'll be nice and provide you with a source I get them from- but you have to read. I know it's difficult, but, remember, nothing worth having is easy- that includes knowledge- his articles usually have links (which require more reading) to verify his assertions.
> 
> You're welcome.
Click to expand...

It was the police misconduct feed 
Long gone 
Ruined ....by loopy libertarians 









						Police Tactics and Misconduct
					

Since the 1980s the federal government has prompted the militarization of federal, state, and local law enforcement. That militarization has led not only to well‐publicized disasters, but to a widespread increase in violent law enforcement, which has played a major role in alienating Americans...




					www.cato.org
				




I'm looking for the original creator


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of older commies and national socialist  still masquerade as middle of the roaders and libertarians .....they never broke the old habit
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a straw man argument. If a billion anyone wanted to move here they would have already
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> iF we adopt his beliefs system, ie that the government does not have the power to limit people's movement into the country,
> 
> how many foreigners, do you think would move here, then?
> 
> 
> And do you want that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No wonder why he denys it lol
> Without cutting off the billions in benifits  they get and hammering employers theyll never stop
> 
> Cut off all social service for illegals ...many will self deport many will never bother to come ....it really is that simple to make a big dent in the illegal problem
> 
> Why do they think europe is also being over run ...almost instant benifits
> 
> It's a bad troll or he could be an older lefty
> 
> Older lefties Commies and national socialist ...some were really good at wrapping themselves in the flag,constitution, and then proceed to pass them selves off in the middle of the road.....its just like thier usual it's no big deal argument in drag
> And it's not even aimed at us  ...its always aimed at the normies...for a reason .
> And why they ignore facts coming from us  ...it really is an old leftie tactic
> 
> You'll hear the same shit outta some libertarians to
> Guys like this turn millions of upon millions of americans off to libertarians
> what's to talk about if they dont even wanna acknowledge a simple fact anyway ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe the B.S. you're posting about me, you should sue your brains for non-support.  I've been tolerant of your bullshit to a point, but even I have limits.  There is not a swinging dick on the face of this earth that really believes that I am left wing, socialist, communist or anything close.  The scars on my body are constant reminders of the price I've paid for fighting the people you associate me with.  The fact that your education level becomes obvious when you misspell words like denies tells me that I should strive to be more tolerant of your ignorance.
> 
> *LONG* before your dumb ass came along, I was manning the border.  Long before you ever thought about this topic I was ghost writing articles for Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr (US Army) in the late 1970s and 1980s.  Mohr  was the first American captured during the Korean Conflict.  He was beaten, tortured and sentenced to death, only to escape and go on to fight and then write Army manuals on brainwashing techniques and psychopolitics.  Mohr was on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society and he was a co-founder of the Militia of Georgia - as was I.
> 
> Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s Mohr was keeping up with undocumented foreigners on the border and he was convinced, based on reports and intel that we were getting, that the Soviets had specially trained Cubans in Mexico, sneaking into the United States and starting sleeper cells, ready to take America down.  There were the allegations of helicopters from Mexico flying over Brownsville, Texas and estimates of* two million undocumented foreigners* entering the United States per year.  It's been four decades of me analyzing what I've read and poring over mountains of material I collected in think tanks over that time so that I know what is factual and what is outright bullshit.  And I'll tell you right now, there was a time when people *KNEW* the extent of both my commitment to this country and the base of knowledge from which I worked.  You don't.  I can tell every poster right now, you don't know when a globalist, communist or lefty (you couldn't spell that one right either) puts crap in your head that you've been too ignorant to verify.   So, without searching the Internet for hours, who do you think the lefties rely on for tactics and then reference where what I write takes you back to left wing propaganda?   In other words, cite the sources for your allegations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh boy
> Really lol
> 
> 
> Ya didnt say
> "They wouldn't move here if the country was run the way I think it should be run."
> 
> What's you're plan ? Let's hear it
> 
> And please dont say illegals dont use billions upon billions of social service dollars ...why not be an honest fry station guy instead
Click to expand...


What has the cost of undocumented foreigners have to do with any plan I may have?  FWIW, *EVERY* non-partisan study has concluded that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in government benefits.  It's not a great argument for the Anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters.  May I give you a better argument against the flooding of America with foreigners?

Every empire that ever fell did so when the government mixed races, cultures, religions, political persuasions, sexual orientations, and creeds into one body politic.  Even the Roman Empire fell for the same reasons.

You cannot understand any plan I might have without a meeting of the minds as to what problem we are trying to solve and what issues we agree or disagree on.  ALL of my critics on this thread, to date, are trying guess as to what I'm about because they only understand the issue from mainstream talking points.  You wouldn't get anything out of anything I say unless and until we have a meeting of the minds.  You're arguing against me without knowing what I'm about and I can't tell it all to you - even in one thread because you have never heard it before... and you would be trying to answer it before you heard it.  I gave one poster a point he wanted to make about an anti-immigrant law that was put into place in the 1880s.... long after all the founders / framers were dead and buried.  So, what are you* really *afraid of?

Have you ever wondered why the patriots from the 1970s to 2005 up to the media sensation of the  so - called _Minutemen_ are *unknown* to virtually every person on this board?  Who were the constitutionalists and patriots during that period?  What court battles took place?  What did the Christian Patriots do?  What were their achievements?  Do you even know?  The primary reason you don't know is that via Hegelian Dialectics, the right was flipped by the left and took up their mantra on social issues, including the border wall.  On the issue of *Liberty *and what would have resolved the issues,  the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters,  erased most of the pro-Constitution achievements that were made from the 1970s up to the early 2000s.  If I gave you their names, you'd probably come back with some concocted B.S. from the Internet that belittles and denigrates *real *heroes.  My plan is that of my forefathers.  If it ain't froke, don't bix it.  That is what the anti Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters did and it set the cause back 50 years.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag 

And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got 

I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Not that the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters will read this, but none of them have a clue as to where I stand, personally, on this issue.
> 
> Presuming that America was a great nation, then there were some uncomfortable truths that the anti - Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters have to come to grips with.  Most of their arguments have revolved around this mantra that they don't care whether you're black, white, Muslim, etc. - you can come to America provided you do so "_legally._" .....




When you make the argument that all people have the right to come here, then you are inviting discussion of legal vs illegal immigration.

That is your framework.


If you want to discuss the issue of legal Third World immigration, which I would be happy to do, then bring up that issue.


And, don't waster our time discussing "bigotry". Sorry, that is a dead horse.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. All the time.
> 
> 
> Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,
> 
> 
> telling what part of their stated position I  "lied" about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I proved that you lied.  See my previous post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the real deal:
> 
> I've been* IN *this discussion for decades now.  With the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters - whatever you want to call them, they go on the attack like you did.  Nobody asks questions nor for clarifications.  It has been easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that was never told before.  The first fact that you should know, going in, I am a constitutionalist.  That being said, I'm going to start with three presuppositions.  You tell me where you think I get it wrong:
> 
> 1)  Without a wall and without federal immigration laws, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in the annals of history
> 
> 2)  The terminology Make America Great Again means, at some point, America *WAS* great
> 
> 3)  During this period of becoming great there was not a wall around America; the Chinese came here to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered; the foreigners you fear did not pose a threat (otherwise we could not have built the Republic we have.)
> 
> Let's find out where you think I'm wrong from a *factual* point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.
> 
> 2. The foreigners did pose a threat, steps were taken to deal with it.
> 
> 3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact in 1630.  The first laws restricting Chinese immigration were in *1882* almost a century after the ratification of the United States Constitution.  Okay so, we'll put the Chinese immigration ban back in place
> 
> 2)  What "_threat_" did the foreigners pose that you are reference to and when?
> 
> 3)  You final response is more of an attempt to try and be dishonest by answering questions that haven't been asked and trying to preempt any honest discussion.  I don't think that foreigners coming to the United States did anything to promote the growth of the nation.  It helped industrialize it, but we'd be fine to not have the level of technology we have today.  I think you want to derail the discussion before it starts.  Presume nothing.  I'm not who or what you think I am.  But I digress.
> 
> Do you know the exact reason that the Chinese were excluded from coming into the United States?
> 
> In your opinion, WHO was the government trying to protect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, in 1631, where the pilgrims were a few score of people starving and freezing and in danger of being wiped out from possibly hostile locals, AND, few if any chinamen, knew of their existence or location, or had any possibly way of reaching them,
> 
> 
> since at that time, as they were struggling to live from day to day, since at that time, they did not pass laws against immigration into tiny, tiny community,
> 
> 
> that is part of your argument as to unlimited movement being part of the package of God Given Rights?
> 
> 
> With all due respect, that is not a convincing argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made *NO* argument.  You started with the Chinese people.  So, are we talking Chinese or immigration?  I offer you an opportunity to have an honest and civil discussion based upon *not doing *what you just did.  So, you don't have anything save of straw man arguments, B.S. allegations that a drunk monkey couldn't believe if he could understand what you said, and attempts to put words into my mouth?   You are desperate.
> 
> But, for those with a tad bit more IQ than Correll, there were some laws in place in the early colonies that *would lead* to immigration laws.  Correll is in the dark and is waiting for me to say something he can criticize because past the objective of fighting so - called _"illegal aliens_," he doesn't have a plan, an ultimate goal, or a vision of what America would be if he were in charge.  I don't have that problem.  But, I know his arguments because I was there, in the think tank, that pioneered them.  I know which arguments are factual and which were political.  Correll realizes that I can point out the flaws in his thinking, but he cannot find a chink in the armor of someone who does not spew left or right wing swill.
Click to expand...



You brought up the lack of formal immigration laws from the mid 1600s, as a point against the people of the United States having the right to choose who to invite to join our society.

So, me addressing that, is not a strawman.


----------



## Gdjjr

Deplorable Yankee said:


> A lot of older commies and national socialist still masquerade as middle of the roaders and libertarians .....they never broke the old habit


I wouldn't know about that- I've never been any of those. I do know though, for a fact, that derogatory commentary doesn't change any minds, though it may have an emotional appeal to fools - fools would be those who resort to personal attacks in lieu of a counter argument on the facts presented.
I am libertarian in my beliefs, and I live that way to the best of my ability. I do believe that ALL men are created equal, though it's plain not all outcomes are equal- which is not what I advocate for- if you think I do, then you can't, or don't read and respond- you look at words and react. There is a big difference.
As for national socialist, look to the alleged "alt right"- I vehemently disagree with their actions and beliefs.
I'm all about Liberty and the gov't's original intent in the constitution,as written, not interpreted. I believe in thinking for myself- that means I read a lot, to gain knowledge, and draw my own conclusion. Try it, you might like it. Or, you may not. It is your choice.


----------



## Gdjjr

Tipsycatlover said:


> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind


Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.

If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on



You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.



			https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
		


Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :

"_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "

This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:

Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:

You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor. 

* I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:

"_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "









						Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
					

Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.




					www.cnbc.com
				




So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
Click to expand...



Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.


The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters will read this, but none of them have a clue as to where I stand, personally, on this issue.
> 
> Presuming that America was a great nation, then there were some uncomfortable truths that the anti - Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters have to come to grips with.  Most of their arguments have revolved around this mantra that they don't care whether you're black, white, Muslim, etc. - you can come to America provided you do so "_legally._" .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you make the argument that all people have the right to come here, then you are inviting discussion of legal vs illegal immigration.
> 
> That is your framework.
> 
> 
> If you want to discuss the issue of legal Third World immigration, which I would be happy to do, then bring up that issue.
> 
> 
> And, don't waster our time discussing "bigotry". Sorry, that is a dead horse.
Click to expand...


Here is your problem Correll:

IF Liberty is an *unalienable* Right, you cannot criminalize Liberty

Just because an individual has Liberty does *NOT* mean they have a Right nor even an obligation to become a citizen

If someone is not a citizen, they cannot affect the politics of your nation.  

If you make Liberty a legal versus illegal subject, it's not long before *YOUR* freedom of movement and *YOUR* Rights to Liberty are being challenged.  The right used to use this "_house_" analogy until I began pointing out that every guest that showed up at your door did not have to marry your daughter.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. All the time.
> 
> 
> Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,
> 
> 
> telling what part of their stated position I  "lied" about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I proved that you lied.  See my previous post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the real deal:
> 
> I've been* IN *this discussion for decades now.  With the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters - whatever you want to call them, they go on the attack like you did.  Nobody asks questions nor for clarifications.  It has been easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that was never told before.  The first fact that you should know, going in, I am a constitutionalist.  That being said, I'm going to start with three presuppositions.  You tell me where you think I get it wrong:
> 
> 1)  Without a wall and without federal immigration laws, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in the annals of history
> 
> 2)  The terminology Make America Great Again means, at some point, America *WAS* great
> 
> 3)  During this period of becoming great there was not a wall around America; the Chinese came here to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered; the foreigners you fear did not pose a threat (otherwise we could not have built the Republic we have.)
> 
> Let's find out where you think I'm wrong from a *factual* point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.
> 
> 2. The foreigners did pose a threat, steps were taken to deal with it.
> 
> 3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact in 1630.  The first laws restricting Chinese immigration were in *1882* almost a century after the ratification of the United States Constitution.  Okay so, we'll put the Chinese immigration ban back in place
> 
> 2)  What "_threat_" did the foreigners pose that you are reference to and when?
> 
> 3)  You final response is more of an attempt to try and be dishonest by answering questions that haven't been asked and trying to preempt any honest discussion.  I don't think that foreigners coming to the United States did anything to promote the growth of the nation.  It helped industrialize it, but we'd be fine to not have the level of technology we have today.  I think you want to derail the discussion before it starts.  Presume nothing.  I'm not who or what you think I am.  But I digress.
> 
> Do you know the exact reason that the Chinese were excluded from coming into the United States?
> 
> In your opinion, WHO was the government trying to protect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, in 1631, where the pilgrims were a few score of people starving and freezing and in danger of being wiped out from possibly hostile locals, AND, few if any chinamen, knew of their existence or location, or had any possibly way of reaching them,
> 
> 
> since at that time, as they were struggling to live from day to day, since at that time, they did not pass laws against immigration into tiny, tiny community,
> 
> 
> that is part of your argument as to unlimited movement being part of the package of God Given Rights?
> 
> 
> With all due respect, that is not a convincing argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made *NO* argument.  You started with the Chinese people.  So, are we talking Chinese or immigration?  I offer you an opportunity to have an honest and civil discussion based upon *not doing *what you just did.  So, you don't have anything save of straw man arguments, B.S. allegations that a drunk monkey couldn't believe if he could understand what you said, and attempts to put words into my mouth?   You are desperate.
> 
> But, for those with a tad bit more IQ than Correll, there were some laws in place in the early colonies that *would lead* to immigration laws.  Correll is in the dark and is waiting for me to say something he can criticize because past the objective of fighting so - called _"illegal aliens_," he doesn't have a plan, an ultimate goal, or a vision of what America would be if he were in charge.  I don't have that problem.  But, I know his arguments because I was there, in the think tank, that pioneered them.  I know which arguments are factual and which were political.  Correll realizes that I can point out the flaws in his thinking, but he cannot find a chink in the armor of someone who does not spew left or right wing swill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up the lack of formal immigration laws from the mid 1600s, as a point against the people of the United States having the right to choose who to invite to join our society.
> 
> So, me addressing that, is not a strawman.
Click to expand...


America's greatness did not happen in one night.  We got from a few colonists and the Mayflower Compact to the ratification of the United States Constitution without a wall, draconian immigration laws, and the forfeiture of our own Liberties in a vain attempt to keep foreigners from participating in the free market economy.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters will read this, but none of them have a clue as to where I stand, personally, on this issue.
> 
> Presuming that America was a great nation, then there were some uncomfortable truths that the anti - Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters have to come to grips with.  Most of their arguments have revolved around this mantra that they don't care whether you're black, white, Muslim, etc. - you can come to America provided you do so "_legally._" .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you make the argument that all people have the right to come here, then you are inviting discussion of legal vs illegal immigration.
> 
> That is your framework.
> 
> 
> If you want to discuss the issue of legal Third World immigration, which I would be happy to do, then bring up that issue.
> 
> 
> And, don't waster our time discussing "bigotry". Sorry, that is a dead horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is your problem Correll:
> 
> IF Liberty is an *unalienable* Right, you cannot criminalize Liberty
> 
> Just because an individual has Liberty does *NOT* mean they have a Right nor even an obligation to become a citizen
> 
> If someone is not a citizen, they cannot affect the politics of your nation.
> 
> If you make Liberty a legal versus illegal subject, it's not long before *YOUR* freedom of movement and *YOUR* Rights to Liberty are being challenged.  The right used to use this "_house_" analogy until I began pointing out that every guest that showed up at your door did not have to marry your daughter.
Click to expand...




A person who moves into my community, and does not become  a citizen, might not effect the POLITICS of my nation.

THey will effect EVERYTHING else from wages to culture, to crime, to diseases and bedbugs, ect ect ect.

AND, then when their kids grow up, they will be citizens and they will effect the politics of my nation too.


One can speculate on whether or not the nation that would arise in such a scenario will/would call itself "America",  but it would not actually be America, not in any meaningful sense of the word.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to let one billion chinese move here?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.
> 
> 
> Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. All the time.
> 
> 
> Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,
> 
> 
> telling what part of their stated position I  "lied" about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I proved that you lied.  See my previous post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the real deal:
> 
> I've been* IN *this discussion for decades now.  With the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters - whatever you want to call them, they go on the attack like you did.  Nobody asks questions nor for clarifications.  It has been easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that was never told before.  The first fact that you should know, going in, I am a constitutionalist.  That being said, I'm going to start with three presuppositions.  You tell me where you think I get it wrong:
> 
> 1)  Without a wall and without federal immigration laws, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in the annals of history
> 
> 2)  The terminology Make America Great Again means, at some point, America *WAS* great
> 
> 3)  During this period of becoming great there was not a wall around America; the Chinese came here to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered; the foreigners you fear did not pose a threat (otherwise we could not have built the Republic we have.)
> 
> Let's find out where you think I'm wrong from a *factual* point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.
> 
> 2. The foreigners did pose a threat, steps were taken to deal with it.
> 
> 3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact in 1630.  The first laws restricting Chinese immigration were in *1882* almost a century after the ratification of the United States Constitution.  Okay so, we'll put the Chinese immigration ban back in place
> 
> 2)  What "_threat_" did the foreigners pose that you are reference to and when?
> 
> 3)  You final response is more of an attempt to try and be dishonest by answering questions that haven't been asked and trying to preempt any honest discussion.  I don't think that foreigners coming to the United States did anything to promote the growth of the nation.  It helped industrialize it, but we'd be fine to not have the level of technology we have today.  I think you want to derail the discussion before it starts.  Presume nothing.  I'm not who or what you think I am.  But I digress.
> 
> Do you know the exact reason that the Chinese were excluded from coming into the United States?
> 
> In your opinion, WHO was the government trying to protect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, in 1631, where the pilgrims were a few score of people starving and freezing and in danger of being wiped out from possibly hostile locals, AND, few if any chinamen, knew of their existence or location, or had any possibly way of reaching them,
> 
> 
> since at that time, as they were struggling to live from day to day, since at that time, they did not pass laws against immigration into tiny, tiny community,
> 
> 
> that is part of your argument as to unlimited movement being part of the package of God Given Rights?
> 
> 
> With all due respect, that is not a convincing argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've made *NO* argument.  You started with the Chinese people.  So, are we talking Chinese or immigration?  I offer you an opportunity to have an honest and civil discussion based upon *not doing *what you just did.  So, you don't have anything save of straw man arguments, B.S. allegations that a drunk monkey couldn't believe if he could understand what you said, and attempts to put words into my mouth?   You are desperate.
> 
> But, for those with a tad bit more IQ than Correll, there were some laws in place in the early colonies that *would lead* to immigration laws.  Correll is in the dark and is waiting for me to say something he can criticize because past the objective of fighting so - called _"illegal aliens_," he doesn't have a plan, an ultimate goal, or a vision of what America would be if he were in charge.  I don't have that problem.  But, I know his arguments because I was there, in the think tank, that pioneered them.  I know which arguments are factual and which were political.  Correll realizes that I can point out the flaws in his thinking, but he cannot find a chink in the armor of someone who does not spew left or right wing swill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up the lack of formal immigration laws from the mid 1600s, as a point against the people of the United States having the right to choose who to invite to join our society.
> 
> So, me addressing that, is not a strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America's greatness did not happen in one night.  We got from a few colonists and the Mayflower Compact to the ratification of the United States Constitution without a wall, draconian immigration laws, and the forfeiture of our own Liberties in a vain attempt to keep foreigners from participating in the free market economy.
Click to expand...



The lack of passing a law, does not mean that the society does not have the right to pass that law.


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> One can speculate on whether or not the nation that would arise in such a scenario will/would call itself "America", but it would not actually be America, not in any meaningful sense of the word.


The United States is in North America, so named because of Amerigo Vespucci- The words united states is a plural, meaning more than one- simple English eludes you I see.


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> The lack of passing a law, does not mean that the society does not have the right to pass that law.


Societies don't have rights- they have power and authority, sometimes taken sometimes granted- individuals have rights- simple English eludes you I see.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can speculate on whether or not the nation that would arise in such a scenario will/would call itself "America", but it would not actually be America, not in any meaningful sense of the word.
> 
> 
> 
> The United States is in North America, so named because of Amerigo Vespucci- The words united states is a plural, meaning more than one- simple English eludes you I see.
Click to expand...



I tend to be sloppy in my writing, as though we were talking like people. 


I will continue to do that, and assume that you are person, and not a lawyer or a troll.


If, at some point, you use that to try to make a false point, against, me, I will ridicule you mercilessly as a lawyer or a troll.


That is how I roll.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.
> 
> 
> The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.
Click to expand...



Correll,  a couple of years ago I had major surgery that took a serious bite out of me financially.  Not liking to be in debt, I pay all my bills up front, which meant while rehabbing, my immediate cash was really low.  You can't just tap into your IRAs, 401k money, etc. like you do your credit card.  

Anyway, my water heater broke down.  It was the overflow valve.  So, I called a plumber.  The guy comes out after being told what is wrong and that I already had the part to fix it with.  The guy retreats to his van for over half an hour to deliver a "_proposal_" to do the job.  He wanted $245.  By calling him, I had agreed to his service charge, which is all an honest man should have had to pay.  I told him to get the Hell off my property.

I then got on Craigslist and called someone in my area that would do odd jobs.  He came over and in literally ten minutes changed out the over flow valve.  All it takes is an adjustable wrench, a little bit of tape that you put on the threads of the valve and then take one out, put the other in.  It can be done by a trained monkey in ten minutes.  Your "_market rate_" is whatever the plumber can charge.  And government tries to prevent competition by requiring licenses, insurance, etc. for companies as partial justification for trying to rip people off.  The guy off Craigslist charged $35.  It was only worth a freaking service call.  The plumber was charging $1,470 an hour based on his "_proposal._"

Correll, in a free market economy, we pay what we can afford.  Retired and disabled people, along with those in low income neighborhoods simply cannot afford your $1,470 an hour "_market rate_," so they engage in the free market economy and hire the person that can give them what they need at the price they can afford.  BTW, an attorney I used to work with got out of the legal business and bought a plumbing repair company after paying a bill to fix a plumbing problem he had one Thanksgiving day.  For many American businesses to not understand the challenges some people have living off less than $1500 a month in Socialist Security or disability, they price themselves out of the market.  IF they made themselves competitive, they would not have to worry about the foreigner willing to do the same job - more productively and cheaper.  What you propose is pure socialism and consumers would be prevented from having any choices in who they do business with.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of passing a law, does not mean that the society does not have the right to pass that law.
> 
> 
> 
> Societies don't have rights- they have power and authority, sometimes taken sometimes granted- individuals have rights- simple English eludes you I see.
Click to expand...



The people that make up the society, have the right to pass laws. Happy?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of passing a law, does not mean that the society does not have the right to pass that law.
> 
> 
> 
> Societies don't have rights- they have power and authority, sometimes taken sometimes granted- individuals have rights- simple English eludes you I see.
Click to expand...



When you deduce the argument of the anti Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters on immigration down to its bare basics, you find a lot of National Socialist influence.  The sad part is, they don't realize that they've been had.  It reminds of some verses out of the Bible that explain their behavior:

_"13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."  Matthew 23 : 13 - 15_

These proselytes are so blind that they cannot see the facts and they are too scared to engage in a real conversation - so we're all over the board.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of passing a law, does not mean that the society does not have the right to pass that law.
> 
> 
> 
> Societies don't have rights- they have power and authority, sometimes taken sometimes granted- individuals have rights- simple English eludes you I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The people that make up the society, have the right to pass laws. Happy?
Click to expand...


So, are you now trying to be a Democrat?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.
> 
> 
> The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll,  a couple of years ago I had major surgery that took a serious bite out of me financially.  Not liking to be in debt, I pay all my bills up front, which meant while rehabbing, my immediate cash was really low.  You can't just tap into your IRAs, 401k money, etc. like you do your credit card.
> 
> Anyway, my water heater broke down.  It was the overflow valve.  So, I called a plumber.  The guy comes out after being told what is wrong and that I already had the part to fix it with.  The guy retreats to his van for over half an hour to deliver a "_proposal_" to do the job.  He wanted $245.  By calling him, I had agreed to his service charge, which is all an honest man should have had to pay.  I told him to get the Hell off my property.
> 
> I then got on Craigslist and called someone in my area that would do odd jobs.  He came over and in literally ten minutes changed out the over flow valve.  All it takes is an adjustable wrench, a little bit of tape that you put on the threads of the valve and then take one out, put the other in.  It can be done by a trained monkey in ten minutes.  Your "_market rate_" is whatever the plumber can charge.  And government tries to prevent competition by requiring licenses, insurance, etc. for companies as partial justification for trying to rip people off.  The guy off Craigslist charged $35.  It was only worth a freaking service call.  The plumber was charging $1,470 an hour based on his "_proposal._"
> 
> Correll, in a free market economy, we pay what we can afford.  Retired and disabled people, along with those in low income neighborhoods simply cannot afford your $1,470 an hour "_market rate_," so they engage in the free market economy and hire the person that can give them what they need at the price they can afford.  BTW, an attorney I used to work with got out of the legal business and bought a plumbing repair company after paying a bill to fix a plumbing problem he had one Thanksgiving day.  For many American businesses to not understand the challenges some people have living off less than $1500 a month in Socialist Security or disability, they price themselves out of the market.  IF they made themselves competitive, they would not have to worry about the foreigner willing to do the same job - more productively and cheaper.  What you propose is pure socialism and consumers would be prevented from having any choices in who they do business with.
Click to expand...



If your response to that problem is to argue that we should not licenses plumbers, and you want to pursue that policy, I would not oppose you. I do not have strong feelings or interest in it myself.


If your response is to argue that, as a society, it is morally and/or legally wrong, to regulate the plumbing service ie, requiring licensing, and that governments are being oppressive it they do, I'm going to be suspicious and doubtful.


If your response is that we need to bring in large numbers of immigrant plumbers to flood the market with supply, thus lowering market rates and ruining and bankrupting all American plumbers, 


I will oppose you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that the anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters will read this, but none of them have a clue as to where I stand, personally, on this issue.
> 
> Presuming that America was a great nation, then there were some uncomfortable truths that the anti - Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters have to come to grips with.  Most of their arguments have revolved around this mantra that they don't care whether you're black, white, Muslim, etc. - you can come to America provided you do so "_legally._" .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you make the argument that all people have the right to come here, then you are inviting discussion of legal vs illegal immigration.
> 
> That is your framework.
> 
> 
> If you want to discuss the issue of legal Third World immigration, which I would be happy to do, then bring up that issue.
> 
> 
> And, don't waster our time discussing "bigotry". Sorry, that is a dead horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is your problem Correll:
> 
> IF Liberty is an *unalienable* Right, you cannot criminalize Liberty
> 
> Just because an individual has Liberty does *NOT* mean they have a Right nor even an obligation to become a citizen
> 
> If someone is not a citizen, they cannot affect the politics of your nation.
> 
> If you make Liberty a legal versus illegal subject, it's not long before *YOUR* freedom of movement and *YOUR* Rights to Liberty are being challenged.  The right used to use this "_house_" analogy until I began pointing out that every guest that showed up at your door did not have to marry your daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person who moves into my community, and does not become  a citizen, might not effect the POLITICS of my nation.
> 
> THey will effect EVERYTHING else from wages to culture, to crime, to diseases and bedbugs, ect ect ect.
> 
> AND, then when their kids grow up, they will be citizens and they will effect the politics of my nation too.
> 
> 
> One can speculate on whether or not the nation that would arise in such a scenario will/would call itself "America",  but it would not actually be America, not in any meaningful sense of the word.
Click to expand...


So, since the wrong people moving into your neighborhood may cause all of that, you should consider the source of your real problem.  Back when America was great, buying and selling homes; hiring workers; doing business in general were all voluntary acts.  In general your neighbor would not sell to a third worlder or low class type out of respect for their community.  Neighbors were like family.  The government did not tell you who could and could not hire.  Consequently, people tended to hire relatives and neighbors... barring that they hired from within the community as locally as they could.

Then the government told the local banks they couldn't engage in those practices.  They called it redlining.  No, says the federal government.  We have to open your neighborhood to the third world - to anyone that wants to move in.  To the employer, they said, NO you cannot discriminate.  You're not allowed to hire the employee of your choice.  You have to hire X number of Blacks, Y Number of other races and Z number of sexual deviants, women, heathen, etc.  In short, the government took your Right to choose.  Your solution is to carry that injustice out even further.

Everybody is guaranteed the *Right to Liberty and we have a Right to the pursuit of Happiness.*  We are not guaranteed happiness, but we have the Right to pursue it.  

Let me explain a dynamic to you so that you understand.  You are trying to find reasons to oppose having an honest conversation with me.  While you're doing that, I'm trying to understand what it is you really believe.  I'm even admitting that I don't know what you guys that try to filibuster and then stereotype your opposition really want at the end of the day.  It would really help if you had a conversation and not try to presume that I fit into any specific category.  I don't fit into any category you have knowledge of or experience with.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of passing a law, does not mean that the society does not have the right to pass that law.
> 
> 
> 
> Societies don't have rights- they have power and authority, sometimes taken sometimes granted- individuals have rights- simple English eludes you I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The people that make up the society, have the right to pass laws. Happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, are you now trying to be a Democrat?
Click to expand...



Are you seriously trying to use "laws" as a buzzword to get an emotional response?

Multiple levels of fail there, ole buddy.


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> I tend to be sloppy in my writing, as though we were talking like people.


I write like I talk- Porter has said I'm cryptic- I call it blunt - sloppy in thinking leads to sloppy in writing.


Correll said:


> The people that make up the society, have the right to pass laws. Happy?


No they don't. They have an authority granted as a privilege. Either can be rescinded. Rights can only be exercised, by Individuals, or restricted by outside forces. Force being key. Force, except in self defense is immoral.

That is, of course, unless one doesn't believe in unalienable rights, but does believe in inalienable rights, which are merely grants and/or privileges given- unalienable rights can not be given, taken, rescinded, passed on or any form of exchange- they are inherent. I think, based on your posts in this thread, you don't believe in unalienable rights - why not is the first question that comes to mind for me. 

Be careful how you answer that -


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.
> 
> 
> The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll,  a couple of years ago I had major surgery that took a serious bite out of me financially.  Not liking to be in debt, I pay all my bills up front, which meant while rehabbing, my immediate cash was really low.  You can't just tap into your IRAs, 401k money, etc. like you do your credit card.
> 
> Anyway, my water heater broke down.  It was the overflow valve.  So, I called a plumber.  The guy comes out after being told what is wrong and that I already had the part to fix it with.  The guy retreats to his van for over half an hour to deliver a "_proposal_" to do the job.  He wanted $245.  By calling him, I had agreed to his service charge, which is all an honest man should have had to pay.  I told him to get the Hell off my property.
> 
> I then got on Craigslist and called someone in my area that would do odd jobs.  He came over and in literally ten minutes changed out the over flow valve.  All it takes is an adjustable wrench, a little bit of tape that you put on the threads of the valve and then take one out, put the other in.  It can be done by a trained monkey in ten minutes.  Your "_market rate_" is whatever the plumber can charge.  And government tries to prevent competition by requiring licenses, insurance, etc. for companies as partial justification for trying to rip people off.  The guy off Craigslist charged $35.  It was only worth a freaking service call.  The plumber was charging $1,470 an hour based on his "_proposal._"
> 
> Correll, in a free market economy, we pay what we can afford.  Retired and disabled people, along with those in low income neighborhoods simply cannot afford your $1,470 an hour "_market rate_," so they engage in the free market economy and hire the person that can give them what they need at the price they can afford.  BTW, an attorney I used to work with got out of the legal business and bought a plumbing repair company after paying a bill to fix a plumbing problem he had one Thanksgiving day.  For many American businesses to not understand the challenges some people have living off less than $1500 a month in Socialist Security or disability, they price themselves out of the market.  IF they made themselves competitive, they would not have to worry about the foreigner willing to do the same job - more productively and cheaper.  What you propose is pure socialism and consumers would be prevented from having any choices in who they do business with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your response to that problem is to argue that we should not licenses plumbers, and you want to pursue that policy, I would not oppose you. I do not have strong feelings or interest in it myself.
> 
> 
> If your response is to argue that, as a society, it is morally and/or legally wrong, to regulate the plumbing service ie, requiring licensing, and that governments are being oppressive it they do, I'm going to be suspicious and doubtful.
> 
> 
> If your response is that we need to bring in large numbers of immigrant plumbers to flood the market with supply, thus lowering market rates and ruining and bankrupting all American plumbers,
> 
> 
> I will oppose you.
Click to expand...


Those are not very cogent arguments.  I'm not bringing anyone into a neighborhood.  The big box guy that thinks he should charge more than a surgeon for a skill set that can be learned in six months is your problem.  The government that locks people out of making a living with restrictions that only allow the rich to compete are your problem.  The people who want to violate our Fourth Amendment Rights by giving employers access to information on background checks - that is irrelevant to a job and many times the facts not understood by employers is your problem.  The fact that a large percentage of Americans were drugged as children and grew up as drug addicts is part of your problem.  Mothers mollycoddling their kids and not making them go out and get a damn job is a substantial part of your problem.  Lazy ass White kids that are living off the sweat of their parents and grandparents, squandering the wealth families built up over generations (turning us into a third world nation) are a part of your problem.  The government with that *POLICE STATE* - 24 / 7 365 monitoring from the womb to the tomb with that pee test, blood test, hair sample, criminal background check, credit check, MVR check, license check, occupation license requirement, mandatory insurance, birth certificate, Socialist Surveillance Number (I mean "_Social Security Number_"), social media access agenda just to get a job at Mickey Ds is also part of your problem.  

The more control you advocate for and the bigger you make the government, the more your problem grows exponentially.  The moral is, if you take a giant shit in your back yard, the flies are bound to show up.  And you are wasting your time by complaining about the flies.  Fix your culture; the rest will fix itself.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to be sloppy in my writing, as though we were talking like people.
> 
> 
> 
> I write like I talk- Porter has said I'm cryptic- I call it blunt - sloppy in thinking leads to sloppy in writing.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people that make up the society, have the right to pass laws. Happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they don't. They have an authority granted as a privilege. Either can be rescinded. Rights can only be exercised, by Individuals, or restricted by outside forces. Force being key. Force, except in self defense is immoral.
> 
> That is, of course, unless one doesn't believe in unalienable rights, but does believe in inalienable rights, which are merely grants and/or privileges given- unalienable rights can not be given, taken, rescinded, passed on or any form of exchange- they are inherent. I think, based on your posts in this thread, you don't believe in unalienable rights - why not is the first question that comes to mind for me.
> 
> Be careful how you answer that -
Click to expand...

 
I'm a little confused by the question.

Perhaps if you could explain to me, if or how you support any laws?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Gdjjr said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.
> 
> If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?
Click to expand...

You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was.  It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders.  There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of passing a law, does not mean that the society does not have the right to pass that law.
> 
> 
> 
> Societies don't have rights- they have power and authority, sometimes taken sometimes granted- individuals have rights- simple English eludes you I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The people that make up the society, have the right to pass laws. Happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, are you now trying to be a Democrat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously trying to use "laws" as a buzzword to get an emotional response?
> 
> Multiple levels of fail there, ole buddy.
Click to expand...


Multiple levels of success there, buddy.  Once you've been challenged to defend your obsession with big government, the more you squirm.  Now, everybody can feel your nervousness.  You aren't quite sure how to respond.  Straw man arguments are not working for you this time.  Slowly we're getting to the root of the problem.  Let's see if you can answer a couple of questions honestly today:

1)  If the government gave foreigners citizenship and they were all legal like, is that something you would agree to?

2)  If you were shown that a law was unconstitutional and not within the government's jurisdiction, would you still support it if it benefited you personally?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Tipsycatlover said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.
> 
> If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was.  It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders.  There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.
Click to expand...


Define Liberty as the founders / framers understood it.  Do you support it?


----------



## Gdjjr

Tipsycatlover said:


> You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was


I'm pretty sure I do- I also know the words stating why- and nowhere have I seen it as being a declaration of co-dependence or making Individuals subservient to a fed gov't- 

I also know that if one doesn't believe in unalienable rights and refuses to say what one does believe in then, by default they believe in inalienable rights, so, they can't live unalienable rights- yet, they appear to want to have the benefits of believing in something they don't believe in- that is hypocritical-


----------



## Gdjjr

Tipsycatlover said:


> There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.


LOL- straw man- the right to pursue Happiness has no caveats- demanding anything is presenting a caveat that doesn't exist- thus, straw man- you're assuming, which leads to incorrect analyses and/or presuming which is arrogant - apparently you don't know, therefore can't believe in or live unalienable rights- but, you want inalienable rights to give the benefit of unalienable rights- if not, please tell us what you do believe.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Porter Rockwell said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.
> 
> If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was.  It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders.  There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define Liberty as the founders / framers understood it.  Do you support it?
Click to expand...

The argument when the Declaration of Independence was written was whether it should include the word liberty at all.  As originally written it was ownership of property that was the unalienable right.   The people had the right to own land, businesses, their own labor that they could bargain away at will.  At the time, the Crown owned everything.  The guarantee was that a person would own the fruits of their enterprise.  That was liberty.  The founders should have kept the original writing because the word liberty has been bastardized as has "pursuit of happiness".


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> I'm a little confused by the question.
> 
> Perhaps if you could explain to me, if or how you support any laws?


Imagine that. It's a very simple question - do you believe in unalienable rights? If not, why?

I support laws that punish harming another intentionally or taking what doesn't belong to you by threat of force or actual force-


----------



## 80zephyr

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUild the wall, deport the fucking illegals, fuck the employers.
> 
> 
> 
> Easy for you to say- but not easy to do.
> Change, for the sake of change isn't always good depending on the change. That doesn't negate the fact, with several million years for History for evidence, that change is inevitable. You adapt or you don't. Personally, I think it best to adapt. I didn't get to my age by fighting change. However, reaching my age allows a different perspective.
> Hollering about doing one thing or another is change that usually doesn't end well.
> The ONLY thing you can change is your attitude. The choice is, and always will be, your's to make.
Click to expand...


How much would it take to change your attitude. Lets ask a hypothetical question. Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?

Mark


----------



## Gdjjr

Tipsycatlover said:


> The argument when the Declaration of Independence was written was whether it should include the word liberty at all. As originally written it was ownership of property that was the unalienable right. The people had the right to own land, businesses, their own labor that they could bargain away at will. At the time, the Crown owned everything. The guarantee was that a person would own the fruits of their enterprise. That was liberty. The founders should have kept the original writing because the word liberty has been bastardized as has "pursuit of happiness".


However, they agreed to what is there, just as they did in the constitution AFTER the Bill of Rights<<<<< was inserted- those rights were not suggestions or guide lines, as they have been bastardized to be- prior to the constitution what were they operating under?

And you still refuse to answer the question- what do you believe in?


----------



## Gdjjr

80zephyr said:


> How much would it take to change your attitude. Lets ask a hypothetical question. Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?
> 
> Mark


Answer my question- that will maybe change my attitude- I don't subscribe to ANY political Party. I despise group think in religion and politics as both demand compliance to a dogma- I am an INDIVIDUAL libertarian- I think for myself. I draw conclusions based on my beliefs and issue examination of how a whatever will effect Liberty- Period. My fundamental beliefs is that ALL men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights. Unalienable rights are inherent- they cannot be taken or granted-

NOW! What do you believe?????


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Gdjjr said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- straw man- the right to pursue Happiness has no caveats- demanding anything is presenting a caveat that doesn't exist- thus, straw man- you're assuming, which leads to incorrect analyses and/or presuming which is arrogant - apparently you don't know, therefore can't believe in or live unalienable rights- but, you want inalienable rights to give the benefit of unalienable rights- if not, please tell us what you do believe.
Click to expand...


You remind me of the mental gymnastics criminals go though to justify their crimes.  Is there truly liberty if homes have locks on their doors?

Your unalienable rights are in the Bill of Rights and only limit the government.





Gdjjr said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much would it take to change your attitude. Lets ask a hypothetical question. Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question- that will maybe change my attitude- I don't subscribe to ANY political Party. I despise group think in religion and politics as both demand compliance to a dogma- I am an INDIVIDUAL libertarian- I think for myself. I draw conclusions based on my beliefs and issue examination of how a whatever will effect Liberty- Period. My fundamental beliefs is that ALL men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights. Unalienable rights are inherent- they cannot be taken or granted-
> 
> NOW! What do you believe?????
Click to expand...

NO men are created equal.  Equality is a function of tyranny.  I have been kind in even bothering to answer your question to this degree.


----------



## Gdjjr

Tipsycatlover said:


> NO men are created equal. Equality is a function of tyranny. I have been kind in even bothering to answer your question to this degree.


ALL men are created equal- if you can prove you were put together otherwise, I'll accept your kindness- a function of tyranny is forcing a belief- force being key- which is immoral unless used in self defense- 

If your heart can believe it your mind can conceive it  - if you don't believe it, which apparently not many do, those many can't live it- which will result in tyranny and/or mob rule which disrespects ALL except the more equal- witness what is happening today- Police State USA- FORCED compliance is tyranny - Period.


----------



## Gdjjr

To equate equal outcome to equal creation is talking points 101 = straw man- giving awards for participation is equal outcome- getting there happened because they were born the same way the more equal were and I bet they bleed red when cut- I bet if they put their pants on two legs at once they'll bust their butt- unless they're sitting down, which does away with equal when the other is standing- 

SO, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN? Godvernment tyranny with grants and privileges (inalienable rights) for the more equal, or, that ALL men have the inherent right (unalineable) to participate in Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Gdjjr said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO men are created equal. Equality is a function of tyranny. I have been kind in even bothering to answer your question to this degree.
> 
> 
> 
> ALL men are created equal- if you can prove you were put together otherwise, I'll accept your kindness- a function of tyranny is forcing a belief- force being key- which is immoral unless used in self defense-
> 
> If your heart can believe it your mind can conceive it  - if you don't believe it, which apparently not many do, those many can't live it- which will result in tyranny and/or mob rule which disrespects ALL except the more equal- witness what is happening today- Police State USA- FORCED compliance is tyranny - Period.
Click to expand...

Forced compliance  is equality.  Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.
> 
> 
> The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll,  a couple of years ago I had major surgery that took a serious bite out of me financially.  Not liking to be in debt, I pay all my bills up front, which meant while rehabbing, my immediate cash was really low.  You can't just tap into your IRAs, 401k money, etc. like you do your credit card.
> 
> Anyway, my water heater broke down.  It was the overflow valve.  So, I called a plumber.  The guy comes out after being told what is wrong and that I already had the part to fix it with.  The guy retreats to his van for over half an hour to deliver a "_proposal_" to do the job.  He wanted $245.  By calling him, I had agreed to his service charge, which is all an honest man should have had to pay.  I told him to get the Hell off my property.
> 
> I then got on Craigslist and called someone in my area that would do odd jobs.  He came over and in literally ten minutes changed out the over flow valve.  All it takes is an adjustable wrench, a little bit of tape that you put on the threads of the valve and then take one out, put the other in.  It can be done by a trained monkey in ten minutes.  Your "_market rate_" is whatever the plumber can charge.  And government tries to prevent competition by requiring licenses, insurance, etc. for companies as partial justification for trying to rip people off.  The guy off Craigslist charged $35.  It was only worth a freaking service call.  The plumber was charging $1,470 an hour based on his "_proposal._"
> 
> Correll, in a free market economy, we pay what we can afford.  Retired and disabled people, along with those in low income neighborhoods simply cannot afford your $1,470 an hour "_market rate_," so they engage in the free market economy and hire the person that can give them what they need at the price they can afford.  BTW, an attorney I used to work with got out of the legal business and bought a plumbing repair company after paying a bill to fix a plumbing problem he had one Thanksgiving day.  For many American businesses to not understand the challenges some people have living off less than $1500 a month in Socialist Security or disability, they price themselves out of the market.  IF they made themselves competitive, they would not have to worry about the foreigner willing to do the same job - more productively and cheaper.  What you propose is pure socialism and consumers would be prevented from having any choices in who they do business with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your response to that problem is to argue that we should not licenses plumbers, and you want to pursue that policy, I would not oppose you. I do not have strong feelings or interest in it myself.
> 
> 
> If your response is to argue that, as a society, it is morally and/or legally wrong, to regulate the plumbing service ie, requiring licensing, and that governments are being oppressive it they do, I'm going to be suspicious and doubtful.
> 
> 
> If your response is that we need to bring in large numbers of immigrant plumbers to flood the market with supply, thus lowering market rates and ruining and bankrupting all American plumbers,
> 
> 
> I will oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not very cogent arguments.  I'm not bringing anyone into a neighborhood.  The big box guy that thinks he should charge more than a surgeon for a skill set that can be learned in six months is your problem.  The government that locks people out of making a living with restrictions that only allow the rich to compete are your problem.  The people who want to violate our Fourth Amendment Rights by giving employers access to information on background checks - that is irrelevant to a job and many times the facts not understood by employers is your problem.  The fact that a large percentage of Americans were drugged as children and grew up as drug addicts is part of your problem.  Mothers mollycoddling their kids and not making them go out and get a damn job is a substantial part of your problem.  Lazy ass White kids that are living off the sweat of their parents and grandparents, squandering the wealth families built up over generations (turning us into a third world nation) are a part of your problem.  The government with that *POLICE STATE* - 24 / 7 365 monitoring from the womb to the tomb with that pee test, blood test, hair sample, criminal background check, credit check, MVR check, license check, occupation license requirement, mandatory insurance, birth certificate, Socialist Surveillance Number (I mean "_Social Security Number_"), social media access agenda just to get a job at Mickey Ds is also part of your problem.
> 
> The more control you advocate for and the bigger you make the government, the more your problem grows exponentially.  The moral is, if you take a giant shit in your back yard, the flies are bound to show up.  And you are wasting your time by complaining about the flies.  Fix your culture; the rest will fix itself.
Click to expand...



1. Most of that seemed to be supporting your example as a valid example of a problem. Which I did not challenge sooo.


2. If your solution is to bring in cheap foreign labor to do the work, then I will oppose you, no matter whether or not you deny personal responsibility for the results of your policy.

3. You suggest fixing our culture. Sounds good. I don't how or why allowing immigrants to flood our country while doing that, would be a good policy.


----------



## 80zephyr

Gdjjr said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much would it take to change your attitude. Lets ask a hypothetical question. Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question- that will maybe change my attitude- I don't subscribe to ANY political Party. I despise group think in religion and politics as both demand compliance to a dogma- I am an INDIVIDUAL libertarian- I think for myself. I draw conclusions based on my beliefs and issue examination of how a whatever will effect Liberty- Period. My fundamental beliefs is that ALL men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights. Unalienable rights are inherent- they cannot be taken or granted-
> 
> NOW! What do you believe?????
Click to expand...


Why am i being asked this? Sure, we have rights. But, do others have a right to trample my own rights? Now, answer my question please.

Mark


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Tipsycatlover said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.
> 
> If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was.  It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders.  There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define Liberty as the founders / framers understood it.  Do you support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument when the Declaration of Independence was written was whether it should include the word liberty at all.  As originally written it was ownership of property that was the unalienable right.   The people had the right to own land, businesses, their own labor that they could bargain away at will.  At the time, the Crown owned everything.  The guarantee was that a person would own the fruits of their enterprise.  That was liberty.  The founders should have kept the original writing because the word liberty has been bastardized as has "pursuit of happiness".
Click to expand...


If I have a Right to own personal property, the don't I have a Right to hire the person who will do a job for me for what I'm willing to pay?  After all, the songwriter is entitled to property Rights in the song he or she writes.  Why should I not own the job I create?

You say the word Liberty was bastardized.  It so happens that I have an 1828 Noah Webster' Dictionary of the English Language.  Noah Webster was a friend to George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Webster had a lot of influence in the wording of the Constitution, but more importantly his 1828 Dictionary was the first dictionary published in the United States.  His entry on the word liberty is quite extensive, so I'll only quote what is relevant to this discussion:

*"Liberty*_ -  Freedom of restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or the mind.  The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will of the mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled.  A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions_."

Therefore, if you restrain a man's physical actions (i.e. you tell him he cannot travel down a public road) then you have violated his liberty.  But, we do have you on record that you do not believe in *unalienable* Rights (so you oppose the Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights is the principles of the Declaration of Independence in a codified form.)  Thank you.  That will help a lot in future posts.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.
> 
> 
> The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll,  a couple of years ago I had major surgery that took a serious bite out of me financially.  Not liking to be in debt, I pay all my bills up front, which meant while rehabbing, my immediate cash was really low.  You can't just tap into your IRAs, 401k money, etc. like you do your credit card.
> 
> Anyway, my water heater broke down.  It was the overflow valve.  So, I called a plumber.  The guy comes out after being told what is wrong and that I already had the part to fix it with.  The guy retreats to his van for over half an hour to deliver a "_proposal_" to do the job.  He wanted $245.  By calling him, I had agreed to his service charge, which is all an honest man should have had to pay.  I told him to get the Hell off my property.
> 
> I then got on Craigslist and called someone in my area that would do odd jobs.  He came over and in literally ten minutes changed out the over flow valve.  All it takes is an adjustable wrench, a little bit of tape that you put on the threads of the valve and then take one out, put the other in.  It can be done by a trained monkey in ten minutes.  Your "_market rate_" is whatever the plumber can charge.  And government tries to prevent competition by requiring licenses, insurance, etc. for companies as partial justification for trying to rip people off.  The guy off Craigslist charged $35.  It was only worth a freaking service call.  The plumber was charging $1,470 an hour based on his "_proposal._"
> 
> Correll, in a free market economy, we pay what we can afford.  Retired and disabled people, along with those in low income neighborhoods simply cannot afford your $1,470 an hour "_market rate_," so they engage in the free market economy and hire the person that can give them what they need at the price they can afford.  BTW, an attorney I used to work with got out of the legal business and bought a plumbing repair company after paying a bill to fix a plumbing problem he had one Thanksgiving day.  For many American businesses to not understand the challenges some people have living off less than $1500 a month in Socialist Security or disability, they price themselves out of the market.  IF they made themselves competitive, they would not have to worry about the foreigner willing to do the same job - more productively and cheaper.  What you propose is pure socialism and consumers would be prevented from having any choices in who they do business with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your response to that problem is to argue that we should not licenses plumbers, and you want to pursue that policy, I would not oppose you. I do not have strong feelings or interest in it myself.
> 
> 
> If your response is to argue that, as a society, it is morally and/or legally wrong, to regulate the plumbing service ie, requiring licensing, and that governments are being oppressive it they do, I'm going to be suspicious and doubtful.
> 
> 
> If your response is that we need to bring in large numbers of immigrant plumbers to flood the market with supply, thus lowering market rates and ruining and bankrupting all American plumbers,
> 
> 
> I will oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not very cogent arguments.  I'm not bringing anyone into a neighborhood.  The big box guy that thinks he should charge more than a surgeon for a skill set that can be learned in six months is your problem.  The government that locks people out of making a living with restrictions that only allow the rich to compete are your problem.  The people who want to violate our Fourth Amendment Rights by giving employers access to information on background checks - that is irrelevant to a job and many times the facts not understood by employers is your problem.  The fact that a large percentage of Americans were drugged as children and grew up as drug addicts is part of your problem.  Mothers mollycoddling their kids and not making them go out and get a damn job is a substantial part of your problem.  Lazy ass White kids that are living off the sweat of their parents and grandparents, squandering the wealth families built up over generations (turning us into a third world nation) are a part of your problem.  The government with that *POLICE STATE* - 24 / 7 365 monitoring from the womb to the tomb with that pee test, blood test, hair sample, criminal background check, credit check, MVR check, license check, occupation license requirement, mandatory insurance, birth certificate, Socialist Surveillance Number (I mean "_Social Security Number_"), social media access agenda just to get a job at Mickey Ds is also part of your problem.
> 
> The more control you advocate for and the bigger you make the government, the more your problem grows exponentially.  The moral is, if you take a giant shit in your back yard, the flies are bound to show up.  And you are wasting your time by complaining about the flies.  Fix your culture; the rest will fix itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Most of that seemed to be supporting your example as a valid example of a problem. Which I did not challenge sooo.
> 
> 
> 2. If your solution is to bring in cheap foreign labor to do the work, then I will oppose you, no matter whether or not you deny personal responsibility for the results of your policy.
> 
> 3. You suggest fixing our culture. Sounds good. I don't how or why allowing immigrants to flood our country while doing that, would be a good policy.
Click to expand...


There you go again, Correll.  More deflection leads to more dishonesty on your part.  I have made NO argument;  am not trying to trick you.  I'm attempting to have an honest conversation with you.  I take full responsibility for hiring the guy that worked on my house.  I have a Right to own personal property.  I have a Right to hire the person or company who can do what I want done at a price I can afford.  The results are, in the instant case, I saved over $200.  the plumber could have stuck the overflow valve in within ten minutes, charged a service fee, had another half an hour of productive time and actually *served the needs of the community*.  You want me to obligated to get screwed by somebody just because they are a willing slave of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not obligated to them - constitutionally or morally.  If I have an obligation to hire an American, then that American has an equal responsibility to me to do the job right at a price I can afford.  Paying someone $1470 an hour for a skillset that took a year to learn is pure insanity.  So, disagree with me, but you have no Right to force your will on me.

As long as there is nobody to do a job at a fair and honest price, you will have cheap foreign labor.  This is like watching a rodent on a treadmill.  When I have jobs available, I would gladly hire a hard working American that came here looking like a human being and willing to work for a reasonable price.  IF any American shows up willing to do the work the job is available.  From my perspective, Correll, you are unrealistic.

My wife has two sons by a previous marriage.  They have friends who have friends and we also have neighbors.  Honest to God, I don't know of an exception.  These guys don't have a job, no high school diploma, no ambition, no work history, most don't have a driver's license, no skill sets.  They sit on their ass all day long with their cell phone, computer and play video games and / or fret over social media.  Since they don't work, they get assistance from the government.  Leeching off their parents, they take part of their food money (provided by the government - you in this case) and let other people buy groceries for 70 cents on the dollar (the going rate around here.)  This gives these leeches the money they need for pot and cigarettes... sometimes some hard core illegal drugs.  Where is the "meantime?"  These scumbag pieces of shit could be put to work tomorrow morning.

I'm just like all the other men in America.  High taxes have made it so that it takes two paychecks to meet the taxes, insurance, etc. associated with owning a home.  But, because of politics, like most men in America I'm  fronting for shitsacks, to stay for free in a home I paid for.  They eat off of mommy's table, panhandle and sell off part of their welfare income for cigarettes, drugs, etc.  It's hard for us to _"prove"_ that is what they're doing.  Even if I did, the cops won't do anything about it.   I have one in my home right now and he cuts the grass.  His mother pays him for that and he gets free rent, free food and use of the washer and dryer.  Because of left wing politics, I'm forbidden from kicking him out and / or putting a size nine in his ass and forcing him to go out and get a job.  Wouldn't you love to work for two and a half hours per week and get to lay around like a mangy dog doing nothing all day... Hell, my wife even pays for his car!  We're no anomaly.  It's our entire culture!!!  If they got rid of all that "_non-violent_" B.S. and eliminated the Lautenberg Amendment allowing men to be the head of the house, I'd be the first to put two sorry mother fuckers back in the work force.  And as each one of these worthless scumbags got forced back into the workforce, there would be no meantime.  It would be they would work or starve.  If they don't work, they cannot afford the pot and if they're working, they don't have time for pot.  Correll, you don't have an objection that common sense cannot overcome.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.
> 
> 
> The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll,  a couple of years ago I had major surgery that took a serious bite out of me financially.  Not liking to be in debt, I pay all my bills up front, which meant while rehabbing, my immediate cash was really low.  You can't just tap into your IRAs, 401k money, etc. like you do your credit card.
> 
> Anyway, my water heater broke down.  It was the overflow valve.  So, I called a plumber.  The guy comes out after being told what is wrong and that I already had the part to fix it with.  The guy retreats to his van for over half an hour to deliver a "_proposal_" to do the job.  He wanted $245.  By calling him, I had agreed to his service charge, which is all an honest man should have had to pay.  I told him to get the Hell off my property.
> 
> I then got on Craigslist and called someone in my area that would do odd jobs.  He came over and in literally ten minutes changed out the over flow valve.  All it takes is an adjustable wrench, a little bit of tape that you put on the threads of the valve and then take one out, put the other in.  It can be done by a trained monkey in ten minutes.  Your "_market rate_" is whatever the plumber can charge.  And government tries to prevent competition by requiring licenses, insurance, etc. for companies as partial justification for trying to rip people off.  The guy off Craigslist charged $35.  It was only worth a freaking service call.  The plumber was charging $1,470 an hour based on his "_proposal._"
> 
> Correll, in a free market economy, we pay what we can afford.  Retired and disabled people, along with those in low income neighborhoods simply cannot afford your $1,470 an hour "_market rate_," so they engage in the free market economy and hire the person that can give them what they need at the price they can afford.  BTW, an attorney I used to work with got out of the legal business and bought a plumbing repair company after paying a bill to fix a plumbing problem he had one Thanksgiving day.  For many American businesses to not understand the challenges some people have living off less than $1500 a month in Socialist Security or disability, they price themselves out of the market.  IF they made themselves competitive, they would not have to worry about the foreigner willing to do the same job - more productively and cheaper.  What you propose is pure socialism and consumers would be prevented from having any choices in who they do business with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your response to that problem is to argue that we should not licenses plumbers, and you want to pursue that policy, I would not oppose you. I do not have strong feelings or interest in it myself.
> 
> 
> If your response is to argue that, as a society, it is morally and/or legally wrong, to regulate the plumbing service ie, requiring licensing, and that governments are being oppressive it they do, I'm going to be suspicious and doubtful.
> 
> 
> If your response is that we need to bring in large numbers of immigrant plumbers to flood the market with supply, thus lowering market rates and ruining and bankrupting all American plumbers,
> 
> 
> I will oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not very cogent arguments.  I'm not bringing anyone into a neighborhood.  The big box guy that thinks he should charge more than a surgeon for a skill set that can be learned in six months is your problem.  The government that locks people out of making a living with restrictions that only allow the rich to compete are your problem.  The people who want to violate our Fourth Amendment Rights by giving employers access to information on background checks - that is irrelevant to a job and many times the facts not understood by employers is your problem.  The fact that a large percentage of Americans were drugged as children and grew up as drug addicts is part of your problem.  Mothers mollycoddling their kids and not making them go out and get a damn job is a substantial part of your problem.  Lazy ass White kids that are living off the sweat of their parents and grandparents, squandering the wealth families built up over generations (turning us into a third world nation) are a part of your problem.  The government with that *POLICE STATE* - 24 / 7 365 monitoring from the womb to the tomb with that pee test, blood test, hair sample, criminal background check, credit check, MVR check, license check, occupation license requirement, mandatory insurance, birth certificate, Socialist Surveillance Number (I mean "_Social Security Number_"), social media access agenda just to get a job at Mickey Ds is also part of your problem.
> 
> The more control you advocate for and the bigger you make the government, the more your problem grows exponentially.  The moral is, if you take a giant shit in your back yard, the flies are bound to show up.  And you are wasting your time by complaining about the flies.  Fix your culture; the rest will fix itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Most of that seemed to be supporting your example as a valid example of a problem. Which I did not challenge sooo.
> 
> 
> 2. If your solution is to bring in cheap foreign labor to do the work, then I will oppose you, no matter whether or not you deny personal responsibility for the results of your policy.
> 
> 3. You suggest fixing our culture. Sounds good. I don't how or why allowing immigrants to flood our country while doing that, would be a good policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, Correll.  More deflection leads to more dishonesty on your part.  I have made NO argument;  am not trying to trick you.  I'm attempting to have an honest conversation with you.  I take full responsibility for hiring the guy that worked on my house.  I have a Right to own personal property.  I have a Right to hire the person or company who can do what I want done at a price I can afford.  The results are, in the instant case, I saved over $200.  the plumber could have stuck the overflow valve in within ten minutes, charged a service fee, had another half an hour of productive time and actually *served the needs of the community*.  You want me to obligated to get screwed by somebody just because they are a willing slave of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not obligated to them - constitutionally or morally.  If I have an obligation to hire an American, then that American has an equal responsibility to me to do the job right at a price I can afford.  Paying someone $1470 an hour for a skillset that took a year to learn is pure insanity.  So, disagree with me, but you have no Right to force your will on me.
> 
> As long as there is nobody to do a job at a fair and honest price, you will have cheap foreign labor.  This is like watching a rodent on a treadmill.  When I have jobs available, I would gladly hire a hard working American that came here looking like a human being and willing to work for a reasonable price.  IF any American shows up willing to do the work the job is available.  From my perspective, Correll, you are unrealistic.
> 
> My wife has two sons by a previous marriage.  They have friends who have friends and we also have neighbors.  Honest to God, I don't know of an exception.  These guys don't have a job, no high school diploma, no ambition, no work history, most don't have a driver's license, no skill sets.  They sit on their ass all day long with their cell phone, computer and play video games and / or fret over social media.  Since they don't work, they get assistance from the government.  Leeching off their parents, they take part of their food money (provided by the government - you in this case) and let other people buy groceries for 70 cents on the dollar (the going rate around here.)  This gives these leeches the money they need for pot and cigarettes... sometimes some hard core illegal drugs.  Where is the "meantime?"  These scumbag pieces of shit could be put to work tomorrow morning.
> 
> I'm just like all the other men in America.  High taxes have made it so that it takes two paychecks to meet the taxes, insurance, etc. associated with owning a home.  But, because of politics, like most men in America I'm  fronting for shitsacks, to stay for free in a home I paid for.  They eat off of mommy's table, panhandle and sell off part of their welfare income for cigarettes, drugs, etc.  It's hard for us to _"prove"_ that is what they're doing.  Even if I did, the cops won't do anything about it.   I have one in my home right now and he cuts the grass.  His mother pays him for that and he gets free rent, free food and use of the washer and dryer.  Because of left wing politics, I'm forbidden from kicking him out and / or putting a size nine in his ass and forcing him to go out and get a job.  Wouldn't you love to work for two and a half hours per week and get to lay around like a mangy dog doing nothing all day... Hell, my wife even pays for his car!  We're no anomaly.  It's our entire culture!!!  If they got rid of all that "_non-violent_" B.S. and eliminated the Lautenberg Amendment allowing men to be the head of the house, I'd be the first to put two sorry mother fuckers back in the work force.  And as each one of these worthless scumbags got forced back into the workforce, there would be no meantime.  It would be they would work or starve.  If they don't work, they cannot afford the pot and if they're working, they don't have time for pot.  Correll, you don't have an objection that common sense cannot overcome.
Click to expand...




Cheap foreign labor is not inevitable. Deport them. Build the Wall. 


You want cheaper plumbers? We can talk about polices to encourage that, that does not undercut American workers.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Porter Rockwell said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.
> 
> If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was.  It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders.  There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define Liberty as the founders / framers understood it.  Do you support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument when the Declaration of Independence was written was whether it should include the word liberty at all.  As originally written it was ownership of property that was the unalienable right.   The people had the right to own land, businesses, their own labor that they could bargain away at will.  At the time, the Crown owned everything.  The guarantee was that a person would own the fruits of their enterprise.  That was liberty.  The founders should have kept the original writing because the word liberty has been bastardized as has "pursuit of happiness".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a Right to own personal property, the don't I have a Right to hire the person who will do a job for me for what I'm willing to pay?  After all, the songwriter is entitled to property Rights in the song he or she writes.  Why should I not own the job I create?
> 
> You say the word Liberty was bastardized.  It so happens that I have an 1828 Noah Webster' Dictionary of the English Language.  Noah Webster was a friend to George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Webster had a lot of influence in the wording of the Constitution, but more importantly his 1828 Dictionary was the first dictionary published in the United States.  His entry on the word liberty is quite extensive, so I'll only quote what is relevant to this discussion:
> 
> *"Liberty*_ -  Freedom of restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or the mind.  The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will of the mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled.  A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions_."
> 
> Therefore, if you restrain a man's physical actions (i.e. you tell him he cannot travel down a public road) then you have violated his liberty.  But, we do have you on record that you do not believe in *unalienable* Rights (so you oppose the Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights is the principles of the Declaration of Independence in a codified form.)  Thank you.  That will help a lot in future posts.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights is a limitation only against the government. It is not applicable to individuals.  You do not have any liberty to encroach upon the property of another.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.
> 
> 
> The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll,  a couple of years ago I had major surgery that took a serious bite out of me financially.  Not liking to be in debt, I pay all my bills up front, which meant while rehabbing, my immediate cash was really low.  You can't just tap into your IRAs, 401k money, etc. like you do your credit card.
> 
> Anyway, my water heater broke down.  It was the overflow valve.  So, I called a plumber.  The guy comes out after being told what is wrong and that I already had the part to fix it with.  The guy retreats to his van for over half an hour to deliver a "_proposal_" to do the job.  He wanted $245.  By calling him, I had agreed to his service charge, which is all an honest man should have had to pay.  I told him to get the Hell off my property.
> 
> I then got on Craigslist and called someone in my area that would do odd jobs.  He came over and in literally ten minutes changed out the over flow valve.  All it takes is an adjustable wrench, a little bit of tape that you put on the threads of the valve and then take one out, put the other in.  It can be done by a trained monkey in ten minutes.  Your "_market rate_" is whatever the plumber can charge.  And government tries to prevent competition by requiring licenses, insurance, etc. for companies as partial justification for trying to rip people off.  The guy off Craigslist charged $35.  It was only worth a freaking service call.  The plumber was charging $1,470 an hour based on his "_proposal._"
> 
> Correll, in a free market economy, we pay what we can afford.  Retired and disabled people, along with those in low income neighborhoods simply cannot afford your $1,470 an hour "_market rate_," so they engage in the free market economy and hire the person that can give them what they need at the price they can afford.  BTW, an attorney I used to work with got out of the legal business and bought a plumbing repair company after paying a bill to fix a plumbing problem he had one Thanksgiving day.  For many American businesses to not understand the challenges some people have living off less than $1500 a month in Socialist Security or disability, they price themselves out of the market.  IF they made themselves competitive, they would not have to worry about the foreigner willing to do the same job - more productively and cheaper.  What you propose is pure socialism and consumers would be prevented from having any choices in who they do business with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your response to that problem is to argue that we should not licenses plumbers, and you want to pursue that policy, I would not oppose you. I do not have strong feelings or interest in it myself.
> 
> 
> If your response is to argue that, as a society, it is morally and/or legally wrong, to regulate the plumbing service ie, requiring licensing, and that governments are being oppressive it they do, I'm going to be suspicious and doubtful.
> 
> 
> If your response is that we need to bring in large numbers of immigrant plumbers to flood the market with supply, thus lowering market rates and ruining and bankrupting all American plumbers,
> 
> 
> I will oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not very cogent arguments.  I'm not bringing anyone into a neighborhood.  The big box guy that thinks he should charge more than a surgeon for a skill set that can be learned in six months is your problem.  The government that locks people out of making a living with restrictions that only allow the rich to compete are your problem.  The people who want to violate our Fourth Amendment Rights by giving employers access to information on background checks - that is irrelevant to a job and many times the facts not understood by employers is your problem.  The fact that a large percentage of Americans were drugged as children and grew up as drug addicts is part of your problem.  Mothers mollycoddling their kids and not making them go out and get a damn job is a substantial part of your problem.  Lazy ass White kids that are living off the sweat of their parents and grandparents, squandering the wealth families built up over generations (turning us into a third world nation) are a part of your problem.  The government with that *POLICE STATE* - 24 / 7 365 monitoring from the womb to the tomb with that pee test, blood test, hair sample, criminal background check, credit check, MVR check, license check, occupation license requirement, mandatory insurance, birth certificate, Socialist Surveillance Number (I mean "_Social Security Number_"), social media access agenda just to get a job at Mickey Ds is also part of your problem.
> 
> The more control you advocate for and the bigger you make the government, the more your problem grows exponentially.  The moral is, if you take a giant shit in your back yard, the flies are bound to show up.  And you are wasting your time by complaining about the flies.  Fix your culture; the rest will fix itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Most of that seemed to be supporting your example as a valid example of a problem. Which I did not challenge sooo.
> 
> 
> 2. If your solution is to bring in cheap foreign labor to do the work, then I will oppose you, no matter whether or not you deny personal responsibility for the results of your policy.
> 
> 3. You suggest fixing our culture. Sounds good. I don't how or why allowing immigrants to flood our country while doing that, would be a good policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, Correll.  More deflection leads to more dishonesty on your part.  I have made NO argument;  am not trying to trick you.  I'm attempting to have an honest conversation with you.  I take full responsibility for hiring the guy that worked on my house.  I have a Right to own personal property.  I have a Right to hire the person or company who can do what I want done at a price I can afford.  The results are, in the instant case, I saved over $200.  the plumber could have stuck the overflow valve in within ten minutes, charged a service fee, had another half an hour of productive time and actually *served the needs of the community*.  You want me to obligated to get screwed by somebody just because they are a willing slave of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not obligated to them - constitutionally or morally.  If I have an obligation to hire an American, then that American has an equal responsibility to me to do the job right at a price I can afford.  Paying someone $1470 an hour for a skillset that took a year to learn is pure insanity.  So, disagree with me, but you have no Right to force your will on me.
> 
> As long as there is nobody to do a job at a fair and honest price, you will have cheap foreign labor.  This is like watching a rodent on a treadmill.  When I have jobs available, I would gladly hire a hard working American that came here looking like a human being and willing to work for a reasonable price.  IF any American shows up willing to do the work the job is available.  From my perspective, Correll, you are unrealistic.
> 
> My wife has two sons by a previous marriage.  They have friends who have friends and we also have neighbors.  Honest to God, I don't know of an exception.  These guys don't have a job, no high school diploma, no ambition, no work history, most don't have a driver's license, no skill sets.  They sit on their ass all day long with their cell phone, computer and play video games and / or fret over social media.  Since they don't work, they get assistance from the government.  Leeching off their parents, they take part of their food money (provided by the government - you in this case) and let other people buy groceries for 70 cents on the dollar (the going rate around here.)  This gives these leeches the money they need for pot and cigarettes... sometimes some hard core illegal drugs.  Where is the "meantime?"  These scumbag pieces of shit could be put to work tomorrow morning.
> 
> I'm just like all the other men in America.  High taxes have made it so that it takes two paychecks to meet the taxes, insurance, etc. associated with owning a home.  But, because of politics, like most men in America I'm  fronting for shitsacks, to stay for free in a home I paid for.  They eat off of mommy's table, panhandle and sell off part of their welfare income for cigarettes, drugs, etc.  It's hard for us to _"prove"_ that is what they're doing.  Even if I did, the cops won't do anything about it.   I have one in my home right now and he cuts the grass.  His mother pays him for that and he gets free rent, free food and use of the washer and dryer.  Because of left wing politics, I'm forbidden from kicking him out and / or putting a size nine in his ass and forcing him to go out and get a job.  Wouldn't you love to work for two and a half hours per week and get to lay around like a mangy dog doing nothing all day... Hell, my wife even pays for his car!  We're no anomaly.  It's our entire culture!!!  If they got rid of all that "_non-violent_" B.S. and eliminated the Lautenberg Amendment allowing men to be the head of the house, I'd be the first to put two sorry mother fuckers back in the work force.  And as each one of these worthless scumbags got forced back into the workforce, there would be no meantime.  It would be they would work or starve.  If they don't work, they cannot afford the pot and if they're working, they don't have time for pot.  Correll, you don't have an objection that common sense cannot overcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap foreign labor is not inevitable. Deport them. Build the Wall.
> 
> 
> You want cheaper plumbers? We can talk about polices to encourage that, that does not undercut American workers.
Click to expand...


You talk around the issue.  Are you afraid of cheap foreign labor or foreigners?  You keep dodging the question.  I'm trying to get you to help me understand your position.  Build a wall - Deport 'em all is a bumper sticker.  So, do you have a problem with the _"legal"_ foreigners?  It's a simple yes or no question.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Tipsycatlover said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.
> 
> If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was.  It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders.  There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define Liberty as the founders / framers understood it.  Do you support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument when the Declaration of Independence was written was whether it should include the word liberty at all.  As originally written it was ownership of property that was the unalienable right.   The people had the right to own land, businesses, their own labor that they could bargain away at will.  At the time, the Crown owned everything.  The guarantee was that a person would own the fruits of their enterprise.  That was liberty.  The founders should have kept the original writing because the word liberty has been bastardized as has "pursuit of happiness".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a Right to own personal property, the don't I have a Right to hire the person who will do a job for me for what I'm willing to pay?  After all, the songwriter is entitled to property Rights in the song he or she writes.  Why should I not own the job I create?
> 
> You say the word Liberty was bastardized.  It so happens that I have an 1828 Noah Webster' Dictionary of the English Language.  Noah Webster was a friend to George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Webster had a lot of influence in the wording of the Constitution, but more importantly his 1828 Dictionary was the first dictionary published in the United States.  His entry on the word liberty is quite extensive, so I'll only quote what is relevant to this discussion:
> 
> *"Liberty*_ -  Freedom of restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or the mind.  The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will of the mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled.  A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions_."
> 
> Therefore, if you restrain a man's physical actions (i.e. you tell him he cannot travel down a public road) then you have violated his liberty.  But, we do have you on record that you do not believe in *unalienable* Rights (so you oppose the Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights is the principles of the Declaration of Independence in a codified form.)  Thank you.  That will help a lot in future posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a limitation only against the government. It is not applicable to individuals.  You do not have any liberty to encroach upon the property of another.
Click to expand...


The government says they own the public roads; I can't think of an employer wherein the employee forced themselves onto the employer.  The employer willingly hired them.

The whole build the wall deal made headlines after Ranch Rescue tried to keep some Salvadorans from trespassing over private property in order to effect an improper entry into the United States.  In that case, the court ruled that Ranch Rescue violated the _civil rights _(sic) of the Salvadorans.  Ranch Rescue members went to prison and the property owner lost his ranch.  I personally tried to get those people to appeal the case, but they were not interested.  

So, the law is, the foreigners have _"civil rights"_ that apparently trump the private property Rights of Americans.  Instead of swearing at me, you should know that it was the people who are now anti Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters that helped make that precedent.  Were you trying to argue out of ignorance or dishonesty?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

I remain in the dark as to why people get their boxers in a bunch on the immigration issue.  I do not understand the nature of the problem.

Is the problem the legal status of the foreigner?

Do these people want to stop all foreigners and put a moratorium on all immigration?

Are these people worried only about jobs?

Is the perceived outrage over taxes?

The end game here is so elusive that I'm struggling to find out what the real, bottom line issue is.  The only thing I'm getting is that the foreigner did not have the anti liberty  / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporter's _permission _(sic) to exercise their Liberty. * If *that is the issue they are fighting, then they lost a long time ago.  The left has spoken and they outnumber the APM (Anti liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters.)  The only reason Trump is president is due to the electoral college and the Dems are attacking that, wanting a popularity vote to decide the outcome of the elections.  

If anyone can tell me what the real issue is and what the end game is, please let me know.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Porter Rockwell said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.
> 
> If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was.  It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders.  There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define Liberty as the founders / framers understood it.  Do you support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument when the Declaration of Independence was written was whether it should include the word liberty at all.  As originally written it was ownership of property that was the unalienable right.   The people had the right to own land, businesses, their own labor that they could bargain away at will.  At the time, the Crown owned everything.  The guarantee was that a person would own the fruits of their enterprise.  That was liberty.  The founders should have kept the original writing because the word liberty has been bastardized as has "pursuit of happiness".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a Right to own personal property, the don't I have a Right to hire the person who will do a job for me for what I'm willing to pay?  After all, the songwriter is entitled to property Rights in the song he or she writes.  Why should I not own the job I create?
> 
> You say the word Liberty was bastardized.  It so happens that I have an 1828 Noah Webster' Dictionary of the English Language.  Noah Webster was a friend to George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Webster had a lot of influence in the wording of the Constitution, but more importantly his 1828 Dictionary was the first dictionary published in the United States.  His entry on the word liberty is quite extensive, so I'll only quote what is relevant to this discussion:
> 
> *"Liberty*_ -  Freedom of restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or the mind.  The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will of the mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled.  A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions_."
> 
> Therefore, if you restrain a man's physical actions (i.e. you tell him he cannot travel down a public road) then you have violated his liberty.  But, we do have you on record that you do not believe in *unalienable* Rights (so you oppose the Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights is the principles of the Declaration of Independence in a codified form.)  Thank you.  That will help a lot in future posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a limitation only against the government. It is not applicable to individuals.  You do not have any liberty to encroach upon the property of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government says they own the public roads; I can't think of an employer wherein the employee forced themselves onto the employer.  The employer willingly hired them.
> 
> The whole build the wall deal made headlines after Ranch Rescue tried to keep some Salvadorans from trespassing over private property in order to effect an improper entry into the United States.  In that case, the court ruled that Ranch Rescue violated the _civil rights _(sic) of the Salvadorans.  Ranch Rescue members went to prison and the property owner lost his ranch.  I personally tried to get those people to appeal the case, but they were not interested.
> 
> So, the law is, the foreigners have _"civil rights"_ that apparently trump the private property Rights of Americans.  Instead of swearing at me, you should know that it was the people who are now anti Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters that helped make that precedent.  Were you trying to argue out of ignorance or dishonesty?
Click to expand...


I was a member of Ranch Rescue


Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.
> 
> 
> The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll,  a couple of years ago I had major surgery that took a serious bite out of me financially.  Not liking to be in debt, I pay all my bills up front, which meant while rehabbing, my immediate cash was really low.  You can't just tap into your IRAs, 401k money, etc. like you do your credit card.
> 
> Anyway, my water heater broke down.  It was the overflow valve.  So, I called a plumber.  The guy comes out after being told what is wrong and that I already had the part to fix it with.  The guy retreats to his van for over half an hour to deliver a "_proposal_" to do the job.  He wanted $245.  By calling him, I had agreed to his service charge, which is all an honest man should have had to pay.  I told him to get the Hell off my property.
> 
> I then got on Craigslist and called someone in my area that would do odd jobs.  He came over and in literally ten minutes changed out the over flow valve.  All it takes is an adjustable wrench, a little bit of tape that you put on the threads of the valve and then take one out, put the other in.  It can be done by a trained monkey in ten minutes.  Your "_market rate_" is whatever the plumber can charge.  And government tries to prevent competition by requiring licenses, insurance, etc. for companies as partial justification for trying to rip people off.  The guy off Craigslist charged $35.  It was only worth a freaking service call.  The plumber was charging $1,470 an hour based on his "_proposal._"
> 
> Correll, in a free market economy, we pay what we can afford.  Retired and disabled people, along with those in low income neighborhoods simply cannot afford your $1,470 an hour "_market rate_," so they engage in the free market economy and hire the person that can give them what they need at the price they can afford.  BTW, an attorney I used to work with got out of the legal business and bought a plumbing repair company after paying a bill to fix a plumbing problem he had one Thanksgiving day.  For many American businesses to not understand the challenges some people have living off less than $1500 a month in Socialist Security or disability, they price themselves out of the market.  IF they made themselves competitive, they would not have to worry about the foreigner willing to do the same job - more productively and cheaper.  What you propose is pure socialism and consumers would be prevented from having any choices in who they do business with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your response to that problem is to argue that we should not licenses plumbers, and you want to pursue that policy, I would not oppose you. I do not have strong feelings or interest in it myself.
> 
> 
> If your response is to argue that, as a society, it is morally and/or legally wrong, to regulate the plumbing service ie, requiring licensing, and that governments are being oppressive it they do, I'm going to be suspicious and doubtful.
> 
> 
> If your response is that we need to bring in large numbers of immigrant plumbers to flood the market with supply, thus lowering market rates and ruining and bankrupting all American plumbers,
> 
> 
> I will oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not very cogent arguments.  I'm not bringing anyone into a neighborhood.  The big box guy that thinks he should charge more than a surgeon for a skill set that can be learned in six months is your problem.  The government that locks people out of making a living with restrictions that only allow the rich to compete are your problem.  The people who want to violate our Fourth Amendment Rights by giving employers access to information on background checks - that is irrelevant to a job and many times the facts not understood by employers is your problem.  The fact that a large percentage of Americans were drugged as children and grew up as drug addicts is part of your problem.  Mothers mollycoddling their kids and not making them go out and get a damn job is a substantial part of your problem.  Lazy ass White kids that are living off the sweat of their parents and grandparents, squandering the wealth families built up over generations (turning us into a third world nation) are a part of your problem.  The government with that *POLICE STATE* - 24 / 7 365 monitoring from the womb to the tomb with that pee test, blood test, hair sample, criminal background check, credit check, MVR check, license check, occupation license requirement, mandatory insurance, birth certificate, Socialist Surveillance Number (I mean "_Social Security Number_"), social media access agenda just to get a job at Mickey Ds is also part of your problem.
> 
> The more control you advocate for and the bigger you make the government, the more your problem grows exponentially.  The moral is, if you take a giant shit in your back yard, the flies are bound to show up.  And you are wasting your time by complaining about the flies.  Fix your culture; the rest will fix itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Most of that seemed to be supporting your example as a valid example of a problem. Which I did not challenge sooo.
> 
> 
> 2. If your solution is to bring in cheap foreign labor to do the work, then I will oppose you, no matter whether or not you deny personal responsibility for the results of your policy.
> 
> 3. You suggest fixing our culture. Sounds good. I don't how or why allowing immigrants to flood our country while doing that, would be a good policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, Correll.  More deflection leads to more dishonesty on your part.  I have made NO argument;  am not trying to trick you.  I'm attempting to have an honest conversation with you.  I take full responsibility for hiring the guy that worked on my house.  I have a Right to own personal property.  I have a Right to hire the person or company who can do what I want done at a price I can afford.  The results are, in the instant case, I saved over $200.  the plumber could have stuck the overflow valve in within ten minutes, charged a service fee, had another half an hour of productive time and actually *served the needs of the community*.  You want me to obligated to get screwed by somebody just because they are a willing slave of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not obligated to them - constitutionally or morally.  If I have an obligation to hire an American, then that American has an equal responsibility to me to do the job right at a price I can afford.  Paying someone $1470 an hour for a skillset that took a year to learn is pure insanity.  So, disagree with me, but you have no Right to force your will on me.
> 
> As long as there is nobody to do a job at a fair and honest price, you will have cheap foreign labor.  This is like watching a rodent on a treadmill.  When I have jobs available, I would gladly hire a hard working American that came here looking like a human being and willing to work for a reasonable price.  IF any American shows up willing to do the work the job is available.  From my perspective, Correll, you are unrealistic.
> 
> My wife has two sons by a previous marriage.  They have friends who have friends and we also have neighbors.  Honest to God, I don't know of an exception.  These guys don't have a job, no high school diploma, no ambition, no work history, most don't have a driver's license, no skill sets.  They sit on their ass all day long with their cell phone, computer and play video games and / or fret over social media.  Since they don't work, they get assistance from the government.  Leeching off their parents, they take part of their food money (provided by the government - you in this case) and let other people buy groceries for 70 cents on the dollar (the going rate around here.)  This gives these leeches the money they need for pot and cigarettes... sometimes some hard core illegal drugs.  Where is the "meantime?"  These scumbag pieces of shit could be put to work tomorrow morning.
> 
> I'm just like all the other men in America.  High taxes have made it so that it takes two paychecks to meet the taxes, insurance, etc. associated with owning a home.  But, because of politics, like most men in America I'm  fronting for shitsacks, to stay for free in a home I paid for.  They eat off of mommy's table, panhandle and sell off part of their welfare income for cigarettes, drugs, etc.  It's hard for us to _"prove"_ that is what they're doing.  Even if I did, the cops won't do anything about it.   I have one in my home right now and he cuts the grass.  His mother pays him for that and he gets free rent, free food and use of the washer and dryer.  Because of left wing politics, I'm forbidden from kicking him out and / or putting a size nine in his ass and forcing him to go out and get a job.  Wouldn't you love to work for two and a half hours per week and get to lay around like a mangy dog doing nothing all day... Hell, my wife even pays for his car!  We're no anomaly.  It's our entire culture!!!  If they got rid of all that "_non-violent_" B.S. and eliminated the Lautenberg Amendment allowing men to be the head of the house, I'd be the first to put two sorry mother fuckers back in the work force.  And as each one of these worthless scumbags got forced back into the workforce, there would be no meantime.  It would be they would work or starve.  If they don't work, they cannot afford the pot and if they're working, they don't have time for pot.  Correll, you don't have an objection that common sense cannot overcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap foreign labor is not inevitable. Deport them. Build the Wall.
> 
> 
> You want cheaper plumbers? We can talk about polices to encourage that, that does not undercut American workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk around the issue.  Are you afraid of cheap foreign labor or foreigners?  You keep dodging the question.  I'm trying to get you to help me understand your position.  Build a wall - Deport 'em all is a bumper sticker.  So, do you have a problem with the _"legal"_ foreigners?  It's a simple yes or no question.
Click to expand...

No wall.  Open the border to hunting.  No wall necessary.  Legal immigration by merit only.  No HB1 visas.  No family reunification.  Drag the invaders out of workplaces, schools, hospitals, old folks homes,  wherever they are found and deport their sorry asses back to wherever they come from.  Brand them El Salvadoran style across the face.  If they come back shot on sight.

Clear enough for you?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Porter Rockwell said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.
> 
> If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was.  It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders.  There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define Liberty as the founders / framers understood it.  Do you support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument when the Declaration of Independence was written was whether it should include the word liberty at all.  As originally written it was ownership of property that was the unalienable right.   The people had the right to own land, businesses, their own labor that they could bargain away at will.  At the time, the Crown owned everything.  The guarantee was that a person would own the fruits of their enterprise.  That was liberty.  The founders should have kept the original writing because the word liberty has been bastardized as has "pursuit of happiness".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a Right to own personal property, the don't I have a Right to hire the person who will do a job for me for what I'm willing to pay?  After all, the songwriter is entitled to property Rights in the song he or she writes.  Why should I not own the job I create?
> 
> You say the word Liberty was bastardized.  It so happens that I have an 1828 Noah Webster' Dictionary of the English Language.  Noah Webster was a friend to George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Webster had a lot of influence in the wording of the Constitution, but more importantly his 1828 Dictionary was the first dictionary published in the United States.  His entry on the word liberty is quite extensive, so I'll only quote what is relevant to this discussion:
> 
> *"Liberty*_ -  Freedom of restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or the mind.  The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will of the mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled.  A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions_."
> 
> Therefore, if you restrain a man's physical actions (i.e. you tell him he cannot travel down a public road) then you have violated his liberty.  But, we do have you on record that you do not believe in *unalienable* Rights (so you oppose the Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights is the principles of the Declaration of Independence in a codified form.)  Thank you.  That will help a lot in future posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a limitation only against the government. It is not applicable to individuals.  You do not have any liberty to encroach upon the property of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government says they own the public roads; I can't think of an employer wherein the employee forced themselves onto the employer.  The employer willingly hired them.
> 
> The whole build the wall deal made headlines after Ranch Rescue tried to keep some Salvadorans from trespassing over private property in order to effect an improper entry into the United States.  In that case, the court ruled that Ranch Rescue violated the _civil rights _(sic) of the Salvadorans.  Ranch Rescue members went to prison and the property owner lost his ranch.  I personally tried to get those people to appeal the case, but they were not interested.
> 
> So, the law is, the foreigners have _"civil rights"_ that apparently trump the private property Rights of Americans.  Instead of swearing at me, you should know that it was the people who are now anti Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters that helped make that precedent.  Were you trying to argue out of ignorance or dishonesty?
Click to expand...

I was IN Ranch Rescue.  Jack Foote was a friend of mine.  I was with him in Operation Hawk the year before the Sutton Ranch debacle.  Only Casey Nethercott went to prison.   It was out of that case that Arizona passed a law forbidding illegals from collecting punitive damages against citizens.   

The policy of Ranch Rescue was to turn over anyone found to the border patrol.  That's  a mistake.  The desert is a big place.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Tipsycatlover said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.
> 
> If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was.  It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders.  There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define Liberty as the founders / framers understood it.  Do you support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument when the Declaration of Independence was written was whether it should include the word liberty at all.  As originally written it was ownership of property that was the unalienable right.   The people had the right to own land, businesses, their own labor that they could bargain away at will.  At the time, the Crown owned everything.  The guarantee was that a person would own the fruits of their enterprise.  That was liberty.  The founders should have kept the original writing because the word liberty has been bastardized as has "pursuit of happiness".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a Right to own personal property, the don't I have a Right to hire the person who will do a job for me for what I'm willing to pay?  After all, the songwriter is entitled to property Rights in the song he or she writes.  Why should I not own the job I create?
> 
> You say the word Liberty was bastardized.  It so happens that I have an 1828 Noah Webster' Dictionary of the English Language.  Noah Webster was a friend to George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Webster had a lot of influence in the wording of the Constitution, but more importantly his 1828 Dictionary was the first dictionary published in the United States.  His entry on the word liberty is quite extensive, so I'll only quote what is relevant to this discussion:
> 
> *"Liberty*_ -  Freedom of restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or the mind.  The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will of the mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled.  A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions_."
> 
> Therefore, if you restrain a man's physical actions (i.e. you tell him he cannot travel down a public road) then you have violated his liberty.  But, we do have you on record that you do not believe in *unalienable* Rights (so you oppose the Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights is the principles of the Declaration of Independence in a codified form.)  Thank you.  That will help a lot in future posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a limitation only against the government. It is not applicable to individuals.  You do not have any liberty to encroach upon the property of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government says they own the public roads; I can't think of an employer wherein the employee forced themselves onto the employer.  The employer willingly hired them.
> 
> The whole build the wall deal made headlines after Ranch Rescue tried to keep some Salvadorans from trespassing over private property in order to effect an improper entry into the United States.  In that case, the court ruled that Ranch Rescue violated the _civil rights _(sic) of the Salvadorans.  Ranch Rescue members went to prison and the property owner lost his ranch.  I personally tried to get those people to appeal the case, but they were not interested.
> 
> So, the law is, the foreigners have _"civil rights"_ that apparently trump the private property Rights of Americans.  Instead of swearing at me, you should know that it was the people who are now anti Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters that helped make that precedent.  Were you trying to argue out of ignorance or dishonesty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was a member of Ranch Rescue
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.
> 
> 
> The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll,  a couple of years ago I had major surgery that took a serious bite out of me financially.  Not liking to be in debt, I pay all my bills up front, which meant while rehabbing, my immediate cash was really low.  You can't just tap into your IRAs, 401k money, etc. like you do your credit card.
> 
> Anyway, my water heater broke down.  It was the overflow valve.  So, I called a plumber.  The guy comes out after being told what is wrong and that I already had the part to fix it with.  The guy retreats to his van for over half an hour to deliver a "_proposal_" to do the job.  He wanted $245.  By calling him, I had agreed to his service charge, which is all an honest man should have had to pay.  I told him to get the Hell off my property.
> 
> I then got on Craigslist and called someone in my area that would do odd jobs.  He came over and in literally ten minutes changed out the over flow valve.  All it takes is an adjustable wrench, a little bit of tape that you put on the threads of the valve and then take one out, put the other in.  It can be done by a trained monkey in ten minutes.  Your "_market rate_" is whatever the plumber can charge.  And government tries to prevent competition by requiring licenses, insurance, etc. for companies as partial justification for trying to rip people off.  The guy off Craigslist charged $35.  It was only worth a freaking service call.  The plumber was charging $1,470 an hour based on his "_proposal._"
> 
> Correll, in a free market economy, we pay what we can afford.  Retired and disabled people, along with those in low income neighborhoods simply cannot afford your $1,470 an hour "_market rate_," so they engage in the free market economy and hire the person that can give them what they need at the price they can afford.  BTW, an attorney I used to work with got out of the legal business and bought a plumbing repair company after paying a bill to fix a plumbing problem he had one Thanksgiving day.  For many American businesses to not understand the challenges some people have living off less than $1500 a month in Socialist Security or disability, they price themselves out of the market.  IF they made themselves competitive, they would not have to worry about the foreigner willing to do the same job - more productively and cheaper.  What you propose is pure socialism and consumers would be prevented from having any choices in who they do business with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your response to that problem is to argue that we should not licenses plumbers, and you want to pursue that policy, I would not oppose you. I do not have strong feelings or interest in it myself.
> 
> 
> If your response is to argue that, as a society, it is morally and/or legally wrong, to regulate the plumbing service ie, requiring licensing, and that governments are being oppressive it they do, I'm going to be suspicious and doubtful.
> 
> 
> If your response is that we need to bring in large numbers of immigrant plumbers to flood the market with supply, thus lowering market rates and ruining and bankrupting all American plumbers,
> 
> 
> I will oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not very cogent arguments.  I'm not bringing anyone into a neighborhood.  The big box guy that thinks he should charge more than a surgeon for a skill set that can be learned in six months is your problem.  The government that locks people out of making a living with restrictions that only allow the rich to compete are your problem.  The people who want to violate our Fourth Amendment Rights by giving employers access to information on background checks - that is irrelevant to a job and many times the facts not understood by employers is your problem.  The fact that a large percentage of Americans were drugged as children and grew up as drug addicts is part of your problem.  Mothers mollycoddling their kids and not making them go out and get a damn job is a substantial part of your problem.  Lazy ass White kids that are living off the sweat of their parents and grandparents, squandering the wealth families built up over generations (turning us into a third world nation) are a part of your problem.  The government with that *POLICE STATE* - 24 / 7 365 monitoring from the womb to the tomb with that pee test, blood test, hair sample, criminal background check, credit check, MVR check, license check, occupation license requirement, mandatory insurance, birth certificate, Socialist Surveillance Number (I mean "_Social Security Number_"), social media access agenda just to get a job at Mickey Ds is also part of your problem.
> 
> The more control you advocate for and the bigger you make the government, the more your problem grows exponentially.  The moral is, if you take a giant shit in your back yard, the flies are bound to show up.  And you are wasting your time by complaining about the flies.  Fix your culture; the rest will fix itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Most of that seemed to be supporting your example as a valid example of a problem. Which I did not challenge sooo.
> 
> 
> 2. If your solution is to bring in cheap foreign labor to do the work, then I will oppose you, no matter whether or not you deny personal responsibility for the results of your policy.
> 
> 3. You suggest fixing our culture. Sounds good. I don't how or why allowing immigrants to flood our country while doing that, would be a good policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, Correll.  More deflection leads to more dishonesty on your part.  I have made NO argument;  am not trying to trick you.  I'm attempting to have an honest conversation with you.  I take full responsibility for hiring the guy that worked on my house.  I have a Right to own personal property.  I have a Right to hire the person or company who can do what I want done at a price I can afford.  The results are, in the instant case, I saved over $200.  the plumber could have stuck the overflow valve in within ten minutes, charged a service fee, had another half an hour of productive time and actually *served the needs of the community*.  You want me to obligated to get screwed by somebody just because they are a willing slave of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not obligated to them - constitutionally or morally.  If I have an obligation to hire an American, then that American has an equal responsibility to me to do the job right at a price I can afford.  Paying someone $1470 an hour for a skillset that took a year to learn is pure insanity.  So, disagree with me, but you have no Right to force your will on me.
> 
> As long as there is nobody to do a job at a fair and honest price, you will have cheap foreign labor.  This is like watching a rodent on a treadmill.  When I have jobs available, I would gladly hire a hard working American that came here looking like a human being and willing to work for a reasonable price.  IF any American shows up willing to do the work the job is available.  From my perspective, Correll, you are unrealistic.
> 
> My wife has two sons by a previous marriage.  They have friends who have friends and we also have neighbors.  Honest to God, I don't know of an exception.  These guys don't have a job, no high school diploma, no ambition, no work history, most don't have a driver's license, no skill sets.  They sit on their ass all day long with their cell phone, computer and play video games and / or fret over social media.  Since they don't work, they get assistance from the government.  Leeching off their parents, they take part of their food money (provided by the government - you in this case) and let other people buy groceries for 70 cents on the dollar (the going rate around here.)  This gives these leeches the money they need for pot and cigarettes... sometimes some hard core illegal drugs.  Where is the "meantime?"  These scumbag pieces of shit could be put to work tomorrow morning.
> 
> I'm just like all the other men in America.  High taxes have made it so that it takes two paychecks to meet the taxes, insurance, etc. associated with owning a home.  But, because of politics, like most men in America I'm  fronting for shitsacks, to stay for free in a home I paid for.  They eat off of mommy's table, panhandle and sell off part of their welfare income for cigarettes, drugs, etc.  It's hard for us to _"prove"_ that is what they're doing.  Even if I did, the cops won't do anything about it.   I have one in my home right now and he cuts the grass.  His mother pays him for that and he gets free rent, free food and use of the washer and dryer.  Because of left wing politics, I'm forbidden from kicking him out and / or putting a size nine in his ass and forcing him to go out and get a job.  Wouldn't you love to work for two and a half hours per week and get to lay around like a mangy dog doing nothing all day... Hell, my wife even pays for his car!  We're no anomaly.  It's our entire culture!!!  If they got rid of all that "_non-violent_" B.S. and eliminated the Lautenberg Amendment allowing men to be the head of the house, I'd be the first to put two sorry mother fuckers back in the work force.  And as each one of these worthless scumbags got forced back into the workforce, there would be no meantime.  It would be they would work or starve.  If they don't work, they cannot afford the pot and if they're working, they don't have time for pot.  Correll, you don't have an objection that common sense cannot overcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap foreign labor is not inevitable. Deport them. Build the Wall.
> 
> 
> You want cheaper plumbers? We can talk about polices to encourage that, that does not undercut American workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk around the issue.  Are you afraid of cheap foreign labor or foreigners?  You keep dodging the question.  I'm trying to get you to help me understand your position.  Build a wall - Deport 'em all is a bumper sticker.  So, do you have a problem with the _"legal"_ foreigners?  It's a simple yes or no question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No wall.  Open the border to hunting.  No wall necessary.  Legal immigration by merit only.  No HB1 visas.  No family reunification.  Drag the invaders out of workplaces, schools, hospitals, old folks homes,  wherever they are found and deport their sorry asses back to wherever they come from.  Brand them El Salvadoran style across the face.  If they come back shot on sight.
> 
> Clear enough for you?
Click to expand...


No, for the umpteenth time.  Is it the foreigners OR are you making an argument over their so - called "_legal status?_"  If you just send people back to Mexico, do you give a rip who the government is letting in through what your side mis-characterizes as "_legal?_"  Since you cannot criminalize Liberty, the term _improper _is used to describe the infraction.  Your people should have taken my advice at the time and appealed the decision.  Now, you have your name attached to a precedent acknowledging the foreigners "_civil rights_."


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Porter Rockwell said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.
> 
> If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was.  It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders.  There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define Liberty as the founders / framers understood it.  Do you support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument when the Declaration of Independence was written was whether it should include the word liberty at all.  As originally written it was ownership of property that was the unalienable right.   The people had the right to own land, businesses, their own labor that they could bargain away at will.  At the time, the Crown owned everything.  The guarantee was that a person would own the fruits of their enterprise.  That was liberty.  The founders should have kept the original writing because the word liberty has been bastardized as has "pursuit of happiness".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a Right to own personal property, the don't I have a Right to hire the person who will do a job for me for what I'm willing to pay?  After all, the songwriter is entitled to property Rights in the song he or she writes.  Why should I not own the job I create?
> 
> You say the word Liberty was bastardized.  It so happens that I have an 1828 Noah Webster' Dictionary of the English Language.  Noah Webster was a friend to George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Webster had a lot of influence in the wording of the Constitution, but more importantly his 1828 Dictionary was the first dictionary published in the United States.  His entry on the word liberty is quite extensive, so I'll only quote what is relevant to this discussion:
> 
> *"Liberty*_ -  Freedom of restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or the mind.  The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will of the mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled.  A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions_."
> 
> Therefore, if you restrain a man's physical actions (i.e. you tell him he cannot travel down a public road) then you have violated his liberty.  But, we do have you on record that you do not believe in *unalienable* Rights (so you oppose the Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights is the principles of the Declaration of Independence in a codified form.)  Thank you.  That will help a lot in future posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a limitation only against the government. It is not applicable to individuals.  You do not have any liberty to encroach upon the property of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government says they own the public roads; I can't think of an employer wherein the employee forced themselves onto the employer.  The employer willingly hired them.
> 
> The whole build the wall deal made headlines after Ranch Rescue tried to keep some Salvadorans from trespassing over private property in order to effect an improper entry into the United States.  In that case, the court ruled that Ranch Rescue violated the _civil rights _(sic) of the Salvadorans.  Ranch Rescue members went to prison and the property owner lost his ranch.  I personally tried to get those people to appeal the case, but they were not interested.
> 
> So, the law is, the foreigners have _"civil rights"_ that apparently trump the private property Rights of Americans.  Instead of swearing at me, you should know that it was the people who are now anti Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters that helped make that precedent.  Were you trying to argue out of ignorance or dishonesty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was a member of Ranch Rescue
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.
> 
> 
> The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll,  a couple of years ago I had major surgery that took a serious bite out of me financially.  Not liking to be in debt, I pay all my bills up front, which meant while rehabbing, my immediate cash was really low.  You can't just tap into your IRAs, 401k money, etc. like you do your credit card.
> 
> Anyway, my water heater broke down.  It was the overflow valve.  So, I called a plumber.  The guy comes out after being told what is wrong and that I already had the part to fix it with.  The guy retreats to his van for over half an hour to deliver a "_proposal_" to do the job.  He wanted $245.  By calling him, I had agreed to his service charge, which is all an honest man should have had to pay.  I told him to get the Hell off my property.
> 
> I then got on Craigslist and called someone in my area that would do odd jobs.  He came over and in literally ten minutes changed out the over flow valve.  All it takes is an adjustable wrench, a little bit of tape that you put on the threads of the valve and then take one out, put the other in.  It can be done by a trained monkey in ten minutes.  Your "_market rate_" is whatever the plumber can charge.  And government tries to prevent competition by requiring licenses, insurance, etc. for companies as partial justification for trying to rip people off.  The guy off Craigslist charged $35.  It was only worth a freaking service call.  The plumber was charging $1,470 an hour based on his "_proposal._"
> 
> Correll, in a free market economy, we pay what we can afford.  Retired and disabled people, along with those in low income neighborhoods simply cannot afford your $1,470 an hour "_market rate_," so they engage in the free market economy and hire the person that can give them what they need at the price they can afford.  BTW, an attorney I used to work with got out of the legal business and bought a plumbing repair company after paying a bill to fix a plumbing problem he had one Thanksgiving day.  For many American businesses to not understand the challenges some people have living off less than $1500 a month in Socialist Security or disability, they price themselves out of the market.  IF they made themselves competitive, they would not have to worry about the foreigner willing to do the same job - more productively and cheaper.  What you propose is pure socialism and consumers would be prevented from having any choices in who they do business with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your response to that problem is to argue that we should not licenses plumbers, and you want to pursue that policy, I would not oppose you. I do not have strong feelings or interest in it myself.
> 
> 
> If your response is to argue that, as a society, it is morally and/or legally wrong, to regulate the plumbing service ie, requiring licensing, and that governments are being oppressive it they do, I'm going to be suspicious and doubtful.
> 
> 
> If your response is that we need to bring in large numbers of immigrant plumbers to flood the market with supply, thus lowering market rates and ruining and bankrupting all American plumbers,
> 
> 
> I will oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not very cogent arguments.  I'm not bringing anyone into a neighborhood.  The big box guy that thinks he should charge more than a surgeon for a skill set that can be learned in six months is your problem.  The government that locks people out of making a living with restrictions that only allow the rich to compete are your problem.  The people who want to violate our Fourth Amendment Rights by giving employers access to information on background checks - that is irrelevant to a job and many times the facts not understood by employers is your problem.  The fact that a large percentage of Americans were drugged as children and grew up as drug addicts is part of your problem.  Mothers mollycoddling their kids and not making them go out and get a damn job is a substantial part of your problem.  Lazy ass White kids that are living off the sweat of their parents and grandparents, squandering the wealth families built up over generations (turning us into a third world nation) are a part of your problem.  The government with that *POLICE STATE* - 24 / 7 365 monitoring from the womb to the tomb with that pee test, blood test, hair sample, criminal background check, credit check, MVR check, license check, occupation license requirement, mandatory insurance, birth certificate, Socialist Surveillance Number (I mean "_Social Security Number_"), social media access agenda just to get a job at Mickey Ds is also part of your problem.
> 
> The more control you advocate for and the bigger you make the government, the more your problem grows exponentially.  The moral is, if you take a giant shit in your back yard, the flies are bound to show up.  And you are wasting your time by complaining about the flies.  Fix your culture; the rest will fix itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Most of that seemed to be supporting your example as a valid example of a problem. Which I did not challenge sooo.
> 
> 
> 2. If your solution is to bring in cheap foreign labor to do the work, then I will oppose you, no matter whether or not you deny personal responsibility for the results of your policy.
> 
> 3. You suggest fixing our culture. Sounds good. I don't how or why allowing immigrants to flood our country while doing that, would be a good policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, Correll.  More deflection leads to more dishonesty on your part.  I have made NO argument;  am not trying to trick you.  I'm attempting to have an honest conversation with you.  I take full responsibility for hiring the guy that worked on my house.  I have a Right to own personal property.  I have a Right to hire the person or company who can do what I want done at a price I can afford.  The results are, in the instant case, I saved over $200.  the plumber could have stuck the overflow valve in within ten minutes, charged a service fee, had another half an hour of productive time and actually *served the needs of the community*.  You want me to obligated to get screwed by somebody just because they are a willing slave of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not obligated to them - constitutionally or morally.  If I have an obligation to hire an American, then that American has an equal responsibility to me to do the job right at a price I can afford.  Paying someone $1470 an hour for a skillset that took a year to learn is pure insanity.  So, disagree with me, but you have no Right to force your will on me.
> 
> As long as there is nobody to do a job at a fair and honest price, you will have cheap foreign labor.  This is like watching a rodent on a treadmill.  When I have jobs available, I would gladly hire a hard working American that came here looking like a human being and willing to work for a reasonable price.  IF any American shows up willing to do the work the job is available.  From my perspective, Correll, you are unrealistic.
> 
> My wife has two sons by a previous marriage.  They have friends who have friends and we also have neighbors.  Honest to God, I don't know of an exception.  These guys don't have a job, no high school diploma, no ambition, no work history, most don't have a driver's license, no skill sets.  They sit on their ass all day long with their cell phone, computer and play video games and / or fret over social media.  Since they don't work, they get assistance from the government.  Leeching off their parents, they take part of their food money (provided by the government - you in this case) and let other people buy groceries for 70 cents on the dollar (the going rate around here.)  This gives these leeches the money they need for pot and cigarettes... sometimes some hard core illegal drugs.  Where is the "meantime?"  These scumbag pieces of shit could be put to work tomorrow morning.
> 
> I'm just like all the other men in America.  High taxes have made it so that it takes two paychecks to meet the taxes, insurance, etc. associated with owning a home.  But, because of politics, like most men in America I'm  fronting for shitsacks, to stay for free in a home I paid for.  They eat off of mommy's table, panhandle and sell off part of their welfare income for cigarettes, drugs, etc.  It's hard for us to _"prove"_ that is what they're doing.  Even if I did, the cops won't do anything about it.   I have one in my home right now and he cuts the grass.  His mother pays him for that and he gets free rent, free food and use of the washer and dryer.  Because of left wing politics, I'm forbidden from kicking him out and / or putting a size nine in his ass and forcing him to go out and get a job.  Wouldn't you love to work for two and a half hours per week and get to lay around like a mangy dog doing nothing all day... Hell, my wife even pays for his car!  We're no anomaly.  It's our entire culture!!!  If they got rid of all that "_non-violent_" B.S. and eliminated the Lautenberg Amendment allowing men to be the head of the house, I'd be the first to put two sorry mother fuckers back in the work force.  And as each one of these worthless scumbags got forced back into the workforce, there would be no meantime.  It would be they would work or starve.  If they don't work, they cannot afford the pot and if they're working, they don't have time for pot.  Correll, you don't have an objection that common sense cannot overcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap foreign labor is not inevitable. Deport them. Build the Wall.
> 
> 
> You want cheaper plumbers? We can talk about polices to encourage that, that does not undercut American workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk around the issue.  Are you afraid of cheap foreign labor or foreigners?  You keep dodging the question.  I'm trying to get you to help me understand your position.  Build a wall - Deport 'em all is a bumper sticker.  So, do you have a problem with the _"legal"_ foreigners?  It's a simple yes or no question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No wall.  Open the border to hunting.  No wall necessary.  Legal immigration by merit only.  No HB1 visas.  No family reunification.  Drag the invaders out of workplaces, schools, hospitals, old folks homes,  wherever they are found and deport their sorry asses back to wherever they come from.  Brand them El Salvadoran style across the face.  If they come back shot on sight.
> 
> Clear enough for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, for the umpteenth time.  Is it the foreigners OR are you making an argument over their so - called "_legal status?_"  If you just send people back to Mexico, do you give a rip who the government is letting in through what your side mis-characterizes as "_legal?_"  Since you cannot criminalize Liberty, the term _improper _is used to describe the infraction.  Your people should have taken my advice at the time and appealed the decision.  Now, you have your name attached to a precedent acknowledging the foreigners "_civil rights_."
Click to expand...

For the umpteenth time.  Send them all back to wherever they came from.  Legalize hunting across the border.  Simple.  Sorry you can't  understand it.  Perhaps you need someone else to chat with.  Someone with the same lack of knowledge and understanding as you have.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Tipsycatlover said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.
> 
> If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was.  It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders.  There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define Liberty as the founders / framers understood it.  Do you support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument when the Declaration of Independence was written was whether it should include the word liberty at all.  As originally written it was ownership of property that was the unalienable right.   The people had the right to own land, businesses, their own labor that they could bargain away at will.  At the time, the Crown owned everything.  The guarantee was that a person would own the fruits of their enterprise.  That was liberty.  The founders should have kept the original writing because the word liberty has been bastardized as has "pursuit of happiness".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a Right to own personal property, the don't I have a Right to hire the person who will do a job for me for what I'm willing to pay?  After all, the songwriter is entitled to property Rights in the song he or she writes.  Why should I not own the job I create?
> 
> You say the word Liberty was bastardized.  It so happens that I have an 1828 Noah Webster' Dictionary of the English Language.  Noah Webster was a friend to George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Webster had a lot of influence in the wording of the Constitution, but more importantly his 1828 Dictionary was the first dictionary published in the United States.  His entry on the word liberty is quite extensive, so I'll only quote what is relevant to this discussion:
> 
> *"Liberty*_ -  Freedom of restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or the mind.  The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will of the mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled.  A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions_."
> 
> Therefore, if you restrain a man's physical actions (i.e. you tell him he cannot travel down a public road) then you have violated his liberty.  But, we do have you on record that you do not believe in *unalienable* Rights (so you oppose the Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights is the principles of the Declaration of Independence in a codified form.)  Thank you.  That will help a lot in future posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a limitation only against the government. It is not applicable to individuals.  You do not have any liberty to encroach upon the property of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government says they own the public roads; I can't think of an employer wherein the employee forced themselves onto the employer.  The employer willingly hired them.
> 
> The whole build the wall deal made headlines after Ranch Rescue tried to keep some Salvadorans from trespassing over private property in order to effect an improper entry into the United States.  In that case, the court ruled that Ranch Rescue violated the _civil rights _(sic) of the Salvadorans.  Ranch Rescue members went to prison and the property owner lost his ranch.  I personally tried to get those people to appeal the case, but they were not interested.
> 
> So, the law is, the foreigners have _"civil rights"_ that apparently trump the private property Rights of Americans.  Instead of swearing at me, you should know that it was the people who are now anti Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters that helped make that precedent.  Were you trying to argue out of ignorance or dishonesty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was a member of Ranch Rescue
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.
> 
> 
> The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll,  a couple of years ago I had major surgery that took a serious bite out of me financially.  Not liking to be in debt, I pay all my bills up front, which meant while rehabbing, my immediate cash was really low.  You can't just tap into your IRAs, 401k money, etc. like you do your credit card.
> 
> Anyway, my water heater broke down.  It was the overflow valve.  So, I called a plumber.  The guy comes out after being told what is wrong and that I already had the part to fix it with.  The guy retreats to his van for over half an hour to deliver a "_proposal_" to do the job.  He wanted $245.  By calling him, I had agreed to his service charge, which is all an honest man should have had to pay.  I told him to get the Hell off my property.
> 
> I then got on Craigslist and called someone in my area that would do odd jobs.  He came over and in literally ten minutes changed out the over flow valve.  All it takes is an adjustable wrench, a little bit of tape that you put on the threads of the valve and then take one out, put the other in.  It can be done by a trained monkey in ten minutes.  Your "_market rate_" is whatever the plumber can charge.  And government tries to prevent competition by requiring licenses, insurance, etc. for companies as partial justification for trying to rip people off.  The guy off Craigslist charged $35.  It was only worth a freaking service call.  The plumber was charging $1,470 an hour based on his "_proposal._"
> 
> Correll, in a free market economy, we pay what we can afford.  Retired and disabled people, along with those in low income neighborhoods simply cannot afford your $1,470 an hour "_market rate_," so they engage in the free market economy and hire the person that can give them what they need at the price they can afford.  BTW, an attorney I used to work with got out of the legal business and bought a plumbing repair company after paying a bill to fix a plumbing problem he had one Thanksgiving day.  For many American businesses to not understand the challenges some people have living off less than $1500 a month in Socialist Security or disability, they price themselves out of the market.  IF they made themselves competitive, they would not have to worry about the foreigner willing to do the same job - more productively and cheaper.  What you propose is pure socialism and consumers would be prevented from having any choices in who they do business with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If your response to that problem is to argue that we should not licenses plumbers, and you want to pursue that policy, I would not oppose you. I do not have strong feelings or interest in it myself.
> 
> 
> If your response is to argue that, as a society, it is morally and/or legally wrong, to regulate the plumbing service ie, requiring licensing, and that governments are being oppressive it they do, I'm going to be suspicious and doubtful.
> 
> 
> If your response is that we need to bring in large numbers of immigrant plumbers to flood the market with supply, thus lowering market rates and ruining and bankrupting all American plumbers,
> 
> 
> I will oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not very cogent arguments.  I'm not bringing anyone into a neighborhood.  The big box guy that thinks he should charge more than a surgeon for a skill set that can be learned in six months is your problem.  The government that locks people out of making a living with restrictions that only allow the rich to compete are your problem.  The people who want to violate our Fourth Amendment Rights by giving employers access to information on background checks - that is irrelevant to a job and many times the facts not understood by employers is your problem.  The fact that a large percentage of Americans were drugged as children and grew up as drug addicts is part of your problem.  Mothers mollycoddling their kids and not making them go out and get a damn job is a substantial part of your problem.  Lazy ass White kids that are living off the sweat of their parents and grandparents, squandering the wealth families built up over generations (turning us into a third world nation) are a part of your problem.  The government with that *POLICE STATE* - 24 / 7 365 monitoring from the womb to the tomb with that pee test, blood test, hair sample, criminal background check, credit check, MVR check, license check, occupation license requirement, mandatory insurance, birth certificate, Socialist Surveillance Number (I mean "_Social Security Number_"), social media access agenda just to get a job at Mickey Ds is also part of your problem.
> 
> The more control you advocate for and the bigger you make the government, the more your problem grows exponentially.  The moral is, if you take a giant shit in your back yard, the flies are bound to show up.  And you are wasting your time by complaining about the flies.  Fix your culture; the rest will fix itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Most of that seemed to be supporting your example as a valid example of a problem. Which I did not challenge sooo.
> 
> 
> 2. If your solution is to bring in cheap foreign labor to do the work, then I will oppose you, no matter whether or not you deny personal responsibility for the results of your policy.
> 
> 3. You suggest fixing our culture. Sounds good. I don't how or why allowing immigrants to flood our country while doing that, would be a good policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, Correll.  More deflection leads to more dishonesty on your part.  I have made NO argument;  am not trying to trick you.  I'm attempting to have an honest conversation with you.  I take full responsibility for hiring the guy that worked on my house.  I have a Right to own personal property.  I have a Right to hire the person or company who can do what I want done at a price I can afford.  The results are, in the instant case, I saved over $200.  the plumber could have stuck the overflow valve in within ten minutes, charged a service fee, had another half an hour of productive time and actually *served the needs of the community*.  You want me to obligated to get screwed by somebody just because they are a willing slave of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not obligated to them - constitutionally or morally.  If I have an obligation to hire an American, then that American has an equal responsibility to me to do the job right at a price I can afford.  Paying someone $1470 an hour for a skillset that took a year to learn is pure insanity.  So, disagree with me, but you have no Right to force your will on me.
> 
> As long as there is nobody to do a job at a fair and honest price, you will have cheap foreign labor.  This is like watching a rodent on a treadmill.  When I have jobs available, I would gladly hire a hard working American that came here looking like a human being and willing to work for a reasonable price.  IF any American shows up willing to do the work the job is available.  From my perspective, Correll, you are unrealistic.
> 
> My wife has two sons by a previous marriage.  They have friends who have friends and we also have neighbors.  Honest to God, I don't know of an exception.  These guys don't have a job, no high school diploma, no ambition, no work history, most don't have a driver's license, no skill sets.  They sit on their ass all day long with their cell phone, computer and play video games and / or fret over social media.  Since they don't work, they get assistance from the government.  Leeching off their parents, they take part of their food money (provided by the government - you in this case) and let other people buy groceries for 70 cents on the dollar (the going rate around here.)  This gives these leeches the money they need for pot and cigarettes... sometimes some hard core illegal drugs.  Where is the "meantime?"  These scumbag pieces of shit could be put to work tomorrow morning.
> 
> I'm just like all the other men in America.  High taxes have made it so that it takes two paychecks to meet the taxes, insurance, etc. associated with owning a home.  But, because of politics, like most men in America I'm  fronting for shitsacks, to stay for free in a home I paid for.  They eat off of mommy's table, panhandle and sell off part of their welfare income for cigarettes, drugs, etc.  It's hard for us to _"prove"_ that is what they're doing.  Even if I did, the cops won't do anything about it.   I have one in my home right now and he cuts the grass.  His mother pays him for that and he gets free rent, free food and use of the washer and dryer.  Because of left wing politics, I'm forbidden from kicking him out and / or putting a size nine in his ass and forcing him to go out and get a job.  Wouldn't you love to work for two and a half hours per week and get to lay around like a mangy dog doing nothing all day... Hell, my wife even pays for his car!  We're no anomaly.  It's our entire culture!!!  If they got rid of all that "_non-violent_" B.S. and eliminated the Lautenberg Amendment allowing men to be the head of the house, I'd be the first to put two sorry mother fuckers back in the work force.  And as each one of these worthless scumbags got forced back into the workforce, there would be no meantime.  It would be they would work or starve.  If they don't work, they cannot afford the pot and if they're working, they don't have time for pot.  Correll, you don't have an objection that common sense cannot overcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap foreign labor is not inevitable. Deport them. Build the Wall.
> 
> 
> You want cheaper plumbers? We can talk about polices to encourage that, that does not undercut American workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk around the issue.  Are you afraid of cheap foreign labor or foreigners?  You keep dodging the question.  I'm trying to get you to help me understand your position.  Build a wall - Deport 'em all is a bumper sticker.  So, do you have a problem with the _"legal"_ foreigners?  It's a simple yes or no question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No wall.  Open the border to hunting.  No wall necessary.  Legal immigration by merit only.  No HB1 visas.  No family reunification.  Drag the invaders out of workplaces, schools, hospitals, old folks homes,  wherever they are found and deport their sorry asses back to wherever they come from.  Brand them El Salvadoran style across the face.  If they come back shot on sight.
> 
> Clear enough for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, for the umpteenth time.  Is it the foreigners OR are you making an argument over their so - called "_legal status?_"  If you just send people back to Mexico, do you give a rip who the government is letting in through what your side mis-characterizes as "_legal?_"  Since you cannot criminalize Liberty, the term _improper _is used to describe the infraction.  Your people should have taken my advice at the time and appealed the decision.  Now, you have your name attached to a precedent acknowledging the foreigners "_civil rights_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time.  Send them all back to wherever they came from.  Legalize hunting across the border.  Simple.  Sorry you can't  understand it.  Perhaps you need someone else to chat with.  Someone with the same lack of knowledge and understanding as you have.
Click to expand...

You have a lack of reading comprehension skills.  Again:

Is it the foreigners OR are you making an argument over their so - called "_legal status?_"

Your* reasoning* is the question, not just what you want.  The reason you want something is different from the want. A baby pisses their diaper full.  They cry and they want mommy.  Is the baby crying because their diaper is making them uncomfortable OR are they hungry?  A parent can figure that out.  I cannot figure out the reason you want people from south of the border deported.  Is it on the pretext of their so - called "_legal_" status* OR* would you rather see all of the Hispanics deported?  A piece of paper issued by an illegal government in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption does not change the foreigner, who they are, nor what threat they pose to you.  I'm just looking for an acknowledgement as to what the bottom line is in order to understand.  Otherwise, this conversation won't go anywhere.  Neither will your war.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

There is a resistance to giving a straightforward answer to my question.  It makes you wonder what people have to fear *OR *do they simply chant a mantra just because they got caught up in a cult?

Let's be reasonable and cut to the chase.  Drunk drivers kill children every day.  What's more important than the lives of your children.  Yet DUI is a misdemeanor and nobody gets their boxers in a bunch over DUI convictions.  We let the same people pay a fine and go right back to doing the same thing.  With immigration, much ado is made about the word "_illegal."  _I don't think that this subject is about the legal status of foreigners.  That is why these guys continue to dodge, duck, deflect and go back to their bumper sticker talking points.  

Personally, I object to the word "_illegal_" being used as I was once being pursued over the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  Once, when I had government lawyers in a position to pose questions they couldn't dodge, I asked them when in the Hell we started pursuing people and presuming their guilt without Due Process.  He said,  _"Sir we do it all the time.  Haven't you ever heard of an illegal alien?"  _One day, shortly thereafter, the Holy Spirit guided me to a human understanding of WHY it is wrong to be caught up in the cult that our resident anti-Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters find themselves in:

"_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._"   Thomas Paine









						[No Comment ]Paine on Preserving Liberty | Harper's Magazine
					

I shall conclude this discourse with offering some observations on the means of preserving liberty; for it is not only necessary that we establish it, but that we preserve it. It is, in the first place, necessary that we distinguish between the means made use of to overthrow despotism, in order...




					harpers.org
				




The link is definitely worth considering.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

80zephyr said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much would it take to change your attitude. Lets ask a hypothetical question. Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question- that will maybe change my attitude- I don't subscribe to ANY political Party. I despise group think in religion and politics as both demand compliance to a dogma- I am an INDIVIDUAL libertarian- I think for myself. I draw conclusions based on my beliefs and issue examination of how a whatever will effect Liberty- Period. My fundamental beliefs is that ALL men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights. Unalienable rights are inherent- they cannot be taken or granted-
> 
> NOW! What do you believe?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am i being asked this? Sure, we have rights. But, do others have a right to trample my own rights? Now, answer my question please.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


What Rights do you have that are being trampled on?


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
Click to expand...



You gotta be kidding me 
What horseshit 

You dont even realize you went from stating illegals dont really get benefits...well they don't really even make a dent , to I've read many studies ....I asked for more than one ,where are the rest of those non partisan studies? ...how many is the many that you've picked over ....give me more ...I want more now 

And you need  to go answer mexicano anon over at /pol and  tell him you want all his neighbors back ...

Yes we all know they pay sales taxes and other fees and what not ...give me more studies that you claim to have read ...lets see those non partisan studies ...like you said thier were many 

Or even just name them ...I would very much like to read them also along with the single one you posted 


If you wanna lecture me about economics get back to me when you've actually made payroll for more than 10 guys and gals week after week after week after week...and dealt with crazy government regulation ...like being forced to put regular old license plates on forklifts ...really nypd harassed my guys loading a 40 footer on the street ...simply because my loading dock had other trucks on the docks and thier was no room ...they actually pulled over the forklift coming on and off the sidewalk onto the street ...wanna fuckin talk about the police I'll give yas an earful retards  ...I even had an illegal from Ecuador at one time running a measure graph with a double and roll attachment ..I stole him from a competitor...14 an hour and this is the middle of the 90s ...he was they only one I ever hired who was illegal ...the white polock who was born here doing the same job on another machine got less ...no shit 

You keep callin everyone who doesnt exactly want wide open borders "just like an authoritarian leftist would   bigots and supporters of the police state ....you're dead in the water there son 



I grew up around many a different foriegners from all over the planet .when I got older did business with many ....nyc and london are the only two cities on earth where more languages are spoken than anywhere else ....by far ..because of corona Elmhurst has been in the news a lot 

Where are the most foreign languages spoken in the united states ?....Elmhurst..its more than 100 languages btw in fact it's more than 200 ...

Ive never been a fan of the police state or the heavy hand of government and government regulations but Why you keep calling everyone bigots ,"who might be scared of foreigners",simply because they  wont subscribe to your well written illogical circle of  gibberish is a simplistic leftist tactic 

Another simplistic leftist talking point you also threw into it ...illegals are harder workers than spoiled drug addicted white natives ....****** please 

And between the both of yas 
The bill of rights does not apply to any of you outside the United States 
Youre not equal 

You bring it to the jungles of Colombia or the desert of saudi arabia then you have a valid point

Carry on fools


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter Rockwell said:


> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine


Amen!


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Gdjjr said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

You guys are shot and living in dreamworld


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Lol Freemarket libertarians for government social services cause all men are created equal pfft

Hez a leftard winding ya up gdjjr


----------



## MaryL

Gdjjr said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well good for you. But the rest of us have had problems with illegal aliens, I kinda doubt that's an isolated occurrence. I live in Colorado, way far from the southern border and its a ginormous problem. People lose jobs and homes, the huge negative impact on our judicial system. Colorado is not a border state, it's hundred of miles from the any border. We didn't ask for this, we didn't allow it to happen, it was forced on us.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, good for me, and quite sanctimonious for you. Congratulations- what you are living are the results of sanctimony believing in itself- people have always lost jobs and homes at which time they adapt and move on or they don't. Matter of fact, Manifest Destiny ensured many lost their homes and their way of life to your hypocritical, self serving sanctimony. Maybe you should run for office.
> As for your speaking for "the rest of us", can you provide the credentials that grants you that authority?
Click to expand...

There's a lot here to unpack here. I wont bother, accept with the main point. I'm seeing local politicians  (Democrats) that give sanctuary to illegal aliens with out the consent of the local populace, and to detriment of the underclass working poor Americans. And  you want to make me the bad guy for noticing. That's the typical game liberals play. It's hard to take you liberals democrats seriously anymore.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag
> 
> And please post some of  these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got
> 
> I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey.  I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan *Congressional Budget Office* did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing politics with you, I'm *giving* you your *BEST* arguments.  In other words the above is *YOUR best case scenario* you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :
> 
> "_Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1),* that impact is most likely modest*_*.* "
> 
> This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits.  In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture.  The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line.  I'll explain simple economics to you:
> 
> Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500.  A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000.  Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc.  Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:
> 
> You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price.  The $2500 you save means that, _at a minimum* _is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer.  Banks can loan out* FOUR d*ollars to every *ONE* they hold in assets.  So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc.  At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.
> 
> * I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor.  The reality is, according to my research:
> 
> "_For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent_. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back
> 
> 
> Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, *your net worth* increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road.  All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries.  Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive.  You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood.  They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta be kidding me
> What horseshit
> 
> You dont even realize you went from stating illegals dont really get benefits...well they don't really even make a dent , to I've read many studies ....I asked for more than one ,where are the rest of those non partisan studies? ...how many is the many that you've picked over ....give me more ...I want more now
> 
> And you need  to go answer mexicano anon over at /pol and  tell him you want all his neighbors back ...
> 
> Yes we all know they pay sales taxes and other fees and what not ...give me more studies that you claim to have read ...lets see those non partisan studies ...like you said thier were many
> 
> Or even just name them ...I would very much like to read them also along with the single one you posted
> 
> 
> If you wanna lecture me about economics get back to me when you've actually made payroll for more than 10 guys and gals week after week after week after week...and dealt with crazy government regulation ...like being forced to put regular old license plates on forklifts ...really nypd harassed my guys loading a 40 footer on the street ...simply because my loading dock had other trucks on the docks and thier was no room ...they actually pulled over the forklift coming on and off the sidewalk onto the street ...wanna fuckin talk about the police I'll give yas an earful retards  ...I even had an illegal from Ecuador at one time running a measure graph with a double and roll attachment ..I stole him from a competitor...14 an hour and this is the middle of the 90s ...he was they only one I ever hired who was illegal ...the white polock who was born here doing the same job on another machine got less ...no shit
> 
> You keep callin everyone who doesnt exactly want wide open borders "just like an authoritarian leftist would   bigots and supporters of the police state ....you're dead in the water there son
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up around many a different foriegners from all over the planet .when I got older did business with many ....nyc and london are the only two cities on earth where more languages are spoken than anywhere else ....by far ..because of corona Elmhurst has been in the news a lot
> 
> Where are the most foreign languages spoken in the united states ?....Elmhurst..its more than 100 languages btw in fact it's more than 200 ...
> 
> Ive never been a fan of the police state or the heavy hand of government and government regulations but Why you keep calling everyone bigots ,"who might be scared of foreigners",simply because they  wont subscribe to your well written illogical circle of  gibberish is a simplistic leftist tactic
> 
> Another simplistic leftist talking point you also threw into it ...illegals are harder workers than spoiled drug addicted white natives ....****** please
> 
> And between the both of yas
> The bill of rights does not apply to any of you outside the United States
> Youre not equal
> 
> You bring it to the jungles of Colombia or the desert of saudi arabia then you have a valid point
> 
> Carry on fools
Click to expand...



You sound like a spoiled child.  I began asking questions first.  AND I gave you the study you alluded to which was not all that earth quaking.  You've provided no proof and answered no questions.  As for the *POLICE STATE*.  The people who supported the nutty wall idea and bitch about immigration were also Tea Party Republicans before they were Trump supporters.  Let me see what they have done for the *POLICE STATE*:

1)  Passed the Homeland (IN) Security bill that has cost nearly a *TRILLION DOLLARS* to date

2)  The so - called _"Patriot Act"_ is on you guys

3)  The National ID / REAL ID Act was introduced by the same Tea Party Republican that introduced the so called _"Patriot Act"  _BTW, the National ID / REAL ID Act relied on the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" as its unique identifier.  Sooo... we got Orwellian Big Brother National ID AND you guys saved the 16th Amendment by giving the SSN a pretext to exist.  The constitutionalists and patriots were winning the war against the unconstitutional 16th Amendment.  My own U.S. Congressman introduced legislation to get rid of the 16th Amendment, the income tax and the IRS.  AND IT HAD MAJOR TRACTION!!!!  Thank you for setting us back 50 years and saving a plank out of the Communist Manifesto

4)  E Verify -  More surveillance and intrusions on the Fourth Amendment

5)  The Constitution Free Zone

6)  Warrant less search and seizures / profiling (the courts found these to be unconstitutional)

7)  The end to the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty

8)  National gun registration through the National ID / REAL ID Act and E Verify

9)  Militarized Police

10)  Proposals that will eliminate sanctuary.  FWIW Second Amendment sanctuary cities are popping up all over America in anticipation of unconstitutional gun laws requiring state and local LEOs to confiscate guns at the whim of a president or federal law.

In the 1970s through the early 2000s *ALL* of those programs were being opposed by the right wing, conservative, patriot, constitutionalists and Christian Patriot communities.  You got conned and flipped by the left, taking up their agenda and being their bitch.  

NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE.  YOU HAVEN'T TOLD ME WHAT IT IS.  WHAT I'M CRITICIZING ARE YOUR SOLUTIONS.  And yes, you ARE the representatives of the *POLICE STATE.*  The people supporting Trump are supporting all the above whether wittingly or unwittingly.  These talking points were liberal fodder when I was a kid learning the difference between being a Christian Patriot and a left wing NEW WORLD ORDER socialist.  You sir, have taken up the banner of the socialists and it's one hand washing the other between the left and the right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
Click to expand...



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


----------



## MaryL

Porter Rockwell said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I despise is a LIAR. * YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*  We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies.  And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more *POLICE STATE *intervention.   Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union.  I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Gdjjr 

Tell me I'm not right over the target now 

Believe it or not we're on the same page on a lot of things 

The guys a well read idiot ,they're a dime a dozen amongst the left 
And like I said the old ones are pros at wrapping themselves in the constitution and flag 


A true free market libertarian and a founders purist would not be  defending socials services   for illegals or natives! or calling anyone a bigot for opposing any social services for illegals

No matter how many words they wrap it in the left wing talking points and tactics are always there ,,,


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I despise is a LIAR. * YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*  We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies.  And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more *POLICE STATE *intervention.   Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union.  I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV  clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned).  And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something?  What's the alternative?
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I despise is a LIAR. * YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*  We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies.  And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more *POLICE STATE *intervention.   Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union.  I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV  clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned).  And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something?  What's the alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctuary was won by *right wing conservatives*.  Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them enforce federal laws.   State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so.  The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty /* POLICE STATE */ MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call _"illegal aliens_."  *IF* those people prevail, gun owners would have *NO* recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional.  I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary.  But, then this post would be TLDR.
> 
> Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you.  Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate* POLICE STATE *could not be refuted or dismissed.  It would be official.
> 
> Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, *NOBODY* can tell them what viable alternatives they may have.  So, which bothers you?  Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law *OR* do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?
Click to expand...

Roflmao

Back on topic for you phony purist putz

Since youre so knowledgable at what time does she turn and become a net gain to the nation? When shes folding someone's laundry for 5 dollars an hour ?in Elmhurst lol at a laundromat? Or in your wife's purest founders vision of a laundry room Drop off service is big all over da 5 boroughs

You didnt even have to go into the laundromat ...theyll pick it up and drop it back off ...Ring..... you laundry ready you pick up we drop off lah lar....

You go into the laundromat guess who is folding your clothes?  And collecting food stamps ,wic housing blah blah blah
I loved my underwear neatly folded and tied up in a ribbon

That's not an exaggeration....when does she become a net gain  no matter how much I loved my clean underwear tied with a ribbon for 80 cents a lb ....thats a2016 price per lb
Dirt cheap

All men are created equal ......not when you're making under minimum wage and have to answer to a government burrecrats and dance thier dance for your supper
*
Tell me free marketeers when does she become a net gain? ...especially if she needs a ventilator ?
Flu like symptoms....oy

"
Woman gives birth standing with trousers on while detained at US-Mexico border


Justin Vallejo

,

The Independent•April 9, 2020


A woman suffering flu-like symptoms gave birth standing and fully clothed while detained near the Mexican-US border, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Guatemalan woman, 27, was being processed at the Chula Vista Border Patrol Station near San Diego when her complaints of pain and pleas for help were allegedly ignored by agents, according to a complaint filed on Wednesday by the ACLU and Jewish Family Service of San Diego with the US Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General*."

And below not for the purest of pure to answer ...your problem is when does she become a net gain ? Like you said they were...on topic ben phony franklin

No hello  im having a baby like now....

oya poppy me in pain ....every idiot tries that whit law enforcement...law enforcement they all tell if I take ya to the hospital or infirmary ya have to come right back to where ever you where in the process

if youre waiting to be seen by a judge say it's a day or two wait ...you think youre slick me in pain ...me sick poppy...they hear it 600 times a day
You now spend 2 day in a hospital and now have to wait 2 more days in a cell waiting for a judge ..


Lol please


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Gdjjr
> 
> Tell me I'm not right over the target now
> 
> Believe it or not we're on the same page on a lot of things
> 
> The guys a well read idiot ,they're a dime a dozen amongst the left
> And like I said the old ones are pros at wrapping themselves in the constitution and flag
> 
> 
> A true free market libertarian and a founders purist would not be  defending socials services   for illegals or natives! or calling anyone a bigot for opposing any social services for illegals
> 
> No matter how many words they wrap it in the left wing talking points and tactics are always there ,,,



You're a freaking dirt bag liar.  The fact is, I have voted in every election since I was 18.  In the course of my years I was picked to be an elector in my district for Ronald Reagan, but declined.  Reagan was anti - gun.  In the years I've voted I cast *ONE vote* for a Democrat and it was for Public Service Commission, and then only because the incumbent had supported EVERY rate increase during his tenure in office.  I don't even associate with Democrats nor leftists... not even in my own family.

Insofar as being a "_well read idiot_." I am a real life activist that has hands on experience.  I don't have a damn clue as to what you think proves A or B, but every single thing I posted is the verifiable truth.  I don't read this stuff you dumb ass,* I LIVE IT*.  When others are pecking keyboards, I'm usually lobbying legislators, reading legislation, helping write it, or speaking to groups.  I'm the *only person on this board* that ever faced the SPLC in a legal action and won.  For that matter, I'm probably the only person here who was ever the subject of a lawsuit brought by the SPLC. 

When challenged, you could not cite *ANY *source or even an example of the left doing or saying the things I say.  That is because you think I'm well read and I realize that you are a moron that can't research the truth and find it with all the vast resources the Internet has to bear. 

On many issues, the Christian Patriots, conservatives, right wing, patriots, constitutionalists, those professing Liberty have had to suffer total morons like you.  You are a representative example why you could not name one, single, solitary, leader of the right in the 1970s - 2000 or any major accomplishments, but chose to make a personal attack against me.  People like you are a danger to themselves and the cause of Liberty.  On many fronts, the constitutionalists had the war won.  Your side set us back 50 years.  It's funny that you should project.  The communists call you a useful idiot.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I despise is a LIAR. * YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*  We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies.  And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more *POLICE STATE *intervention.   Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union.  I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV  clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned).  And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something?  What's the alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctuary was won by *right wing conservatives*.  Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them enforce federal laws.   State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so.  The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty /* POLICE STATE */ MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call _"illegal aliens_."  *IF* those people prevail, gun owners would have *NO* recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional.  I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary.  But, then this post would be TLDR.
> 
> Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you.  Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate* POLICE STATE *could not be refuted or dismissed.  It would be official.
> 
> Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, *NOBODY* can tell them what viable alternatives they may have.  So, which bothers you?  Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law *OR* do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roflmao
> 
> Back on topic for you phony purist putz
> 
> Since youre so knowledgable at what time does she turn and become a net gain to the nation? When shes folding someone's laundry for 5 dollars an hour ?in Elmhurst lol at a laundromat? Or in your wife's purest founders vision of a laundry room
> Drop off service is big all over da 5 boroughs
> 
> You didnt even have to go into the laundromat ...theyll pick it up and drop it back off ...Ring..... you laundry ready you pick up we drop off lah lar....
> 
> You go into the laundromat guess who is folding your clothes?  And collecting food stamps ,wic housing blah blah blah
> I loved my underwear neatly folded and tied up in a ribbon
> 
> That's not an exaggeration....when does she become a net gain  no matter how much I loved my clean underwear tied with a ribbon for 80 cents a lb ....thats a2016 price per lb
> Dirt cheap
> 
> All men are created equal ......not when you're making under minimum wage and have to answer to a government burrecrats and dance thier dance for your supper
> 
> Tell me free marketeers when does she become a net gain? ...especially if she needs a ventilator ?
> Flu like symptoms....oy
> 
> "
> Woman gives birth standing with trousers on while detained at US-Mexico border
> 
> 
> Justin Vallejo
> 
> ,
> 
> The Independent•April 9, 2020
> 
> 
> A woman suffering flu-like symptoms gave birth standing and fully clothed while detained near the Mexican-US border, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
> 
> The Guatemalan woman, 27, was being processed at the Chula Vista Border Patrol Station near San Diego when her complaints of pain and pleas for help were allegedly ignored by agents, according to a complaint filed on Wednesday by the ACLU and Jewish Family Service of San Diego with the US Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General."
> 
> And below not for the purest of pure to answer ...your problem is when does she become a net gain ? Like you said they were...on topic ben phony franklin
> 
> No hello  im having a baby like now....
> 
> oya poppy me in pain ....every idiot tries that whit law enforcement...they all tell if I take ya to the hospital or infirmary ya have to come right back to where ever you where in the process
> 
> Like if youre waiting to be seen by a judge say it's a day or two wait ...you think your slick me in pain ...me sick poppy...they hear it 600 times a day
> You now spend 2 day in a hospital and now have to wait 2 more days in a cell waiting for a judge ..
> 
> 
> Lol please
Click to expand...


That post was so incomprehensible that one would have to be on crack to understand it.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

You were waiting for me 
Pathetic


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr
> 
> Tell me I'm not right over the target now
> 
> Believe it or not we're on the same page on a lot of things
> 
> The guys a well read idiot ,they're a dime a dozen amongst the left
> And like I said the old ones are pros at wrapping themselves in the constitution and flag
> 
> 
> A true free market libertarian and a founders purist would not be  defending socials services   for illegals or natives! or calling anyone a bigot for opposing any social services for illegals
> 
> No matter how many words they wrap it in the left wing talking points and tactics are always there ,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a freaking dirt bag liar.  The fact is, I have voted in every election since I was 18.  In the course of my years I was picked to be an elector in my district for Ronald Reagan, but declined.  Reagan was anti - gun.  In the years I've voted I cast *ONE vote* for a Democrat and it was for Public Service Commission, and then only because the incumbent had supported EVERY rate increase during his tenure in office.  I don't even associate with Democrats nor leftists... not even in my own family.
> 
> Insofar as being a "_well read idiot_." I am a real life activist that has hands on experience.  I don't have a damn clue as to what you think proves A or B, but every single thing I posted is the verifiable truth.  I don't read this stuff you dumb ass,* I LIVE IT*.  When others are pecking keyboards, I'm usually lobbying legislators, reading legislation, helping write it, or speaking to groups.  I'm the *only person on this board* that ever faced the SPLC in a legal action and won.  For that matter, I'm probably the only person here who was ever the subject of a lawsuit brought by the SPLC.
> 
> When challenged, you could not cite *ANY *source or even an example of the left doing or saying the things I say.  That is because you think I'm well read and I realize that you are a moron that can't research the truth and find it with all the vast resources the Internet has to bear.
> 
> On many issues, the Christian Patriots, conservatives, right wing, patriots, constitutionalists, those professing Liberty have had to suffer total morons like you.  You are a representative example why you could not name one, single, solitary, leader of the right in the 1970s - 2000 or any major accomplishments, but chose to make a personal attack against me.  People like you are a danger to themselves and the cause of Liberty.  On many fronts, the constitutionalists had the war won.  Your side set us back 50 years.  It's funny that you should project.  The communists call you a useful idiot.
Click to expand...



You're an american hero and will be awarded the founders social services free market  medal of honor

Jefferson and jesus smile down upon you


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> You were waiting for me
> Pathetic



Don't flatter yourself.  Tv show went off.  I check my e mail and go to bed.


----------



## MaryL

I go to an illegal alien Mexican areas and shops. They are NOT protecting themselves  with masks. They think this is a joke.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

MaryL said:


> I go to an illegal alien Mexican areas and shops. They are NOT protecting themselves  with masks. They think this is a joke.


At last.  Some good news.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were waiting for me
> Pathetic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't flatter yourself.  Tv show went off.  I check my e mail and go to bed.
Click to expand...

Goodnight  Miguel Washington


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr
> 
> Tell me I'm not right over the target now
> 
> Believe it or not we're on the same page on a lot of things
> 
> The guys a well read idiot ,they're a dime a dozen amongst the left
> And like I said the old ones are pros at wrapping themselves in the constitution and flag
> 
> 
> A true free market libertarian and a founders purist would not be  defending socials services   for illegals or natives! or calling anyone a bigot for opposing any social services for illegals
> 
> No matter how many words they wrap it in the left wing talking points and tactics are always there ,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a freaking dirt bag liar.  The fact is, I have voted in every election since I was 18.  In the course of my years I was picked to be an elector in my district for Ronald Reagan, but declined.  Reagan was anti - gun.  In the years I've voted I cast *ONE vote* for a Democrat and it was for Public Service Commission, and then only because the incumbent had supported EVERY rate increase during his tenure in office.  I don't even associate with Democrats nor leftists... not even in my own family.
> 
> Insofar as being a "_well read idiot_." I am a real life activist that has hands on experience.  I don't have a damn clue as to what you think proves A or B, but every single thing I posted is the verifiable truth.  I don't read this stuff you dumb ass,* I LIVE IT*.  When others are pecking keyboards, I'm usually lobbying legislators, reading legislation, helping write it, or speaking to groups.  I'm the *only person on this board* that ever faced the SPLC in a legal action and won.  For that matter, I'm probably the only person here who was ever the subject of a lawsuit brought by the SPLC.
> 
> When challenged, you could not cite *ANY *source or even an example of the left doing or saying the things I say.  That is because you think I'm well read and I realize that you are a moron that can't research the truth and find it with all the vast resources the Internet has to bear.
> 
> On many issues, the Christian Patriots, conservatives, right wing, patriots, constitutionalists, those professing Liberty have had to suffer total morons like you.  You are a representative example why you could not name one, single, solitary, leader of the right in the 1970s - 2000 or any major accomplishments, but chose to make a personal attack against me.  People like you are a danger to themselves and the cause of Liberty.  On many fronts, the constitutionalists had the war won.  Your side set us back 50 years.  It's funny that you should project.  The communists call you a useful idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're an american hero and will be awarded the founders social services free market  medal of honor
> 
> Jefferson and jesus smile down upon you
Click to expand...


You're a smart ass that hasn't done anything with your life.  You still could not show how* anything* I've posted is a left wing tactic... not one citing source.  You are a LIAR

When challenged to prove the anti-liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters were behind the *POLICE STATE*, I provided *TEN* irrefutable examples.  You are a LIAR

There is not one line, in any sentence I've posted that would lead a sensible and honest person to conclude that I'm on the left in any way, shape, fashion, or form.  You have failed to show any such connection.  And you're the one that appears to have the same mental problems as Joe Biden.  So sling your insults.  It's cowardly and something a real man would *NEVER d*o over the Internet.  You keyboard commandos are a dime a dozen and lying, chickenshit, cowards have never impressed me.  FWIW, you probably rule the roost among them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were waiting for me
> Pathetic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't flatter yourself.  Tv show went off.  I check my e mail and go to bed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goodnight  Miguel Washington
Click to expand...


Screw you Pee Wee Herman.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> I go to an illegal alien Mexican areas and shops. They are NOT protecting themselves  with masks. They think this is a joke.



You should not be in a Mexican neighborhood shopping.  The thread troll should be calling you out any minute on that one.

Don't shop there; don't go there; wear a mask and at the very least nitrile gloves when going out.  Protect yourself.  Don't give Uncle Scam any pretext to invoke Martial Law - which they are definitely looking for an opportunity for.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Yikes 


I hit mute and I'm singing the Great american hero theme song in Spanish

To honor all the hard  working free market  libertarian social service paper pushers  handing out net gain food stamps to illegal aliens .


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I despise is a LIAR. * YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*  We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies.  And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more *POLICE STATE *intervention.   Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union.  I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV  clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned).  And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something?  What's the alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctuary was won by *right wing conservatives*.  Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws.   State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so.  The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty /* POLICE STATE */ MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call _"illegal aliens_."  *IF* those people prevail, gun owners would have *NO* recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional.  I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary.  But, then this post would be TLDR.
> 
> Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you.  Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate* POLICE STATE *could not be refuted or dismissed.  It would be official.
> 
> Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, *NOBODY* can tell them what viable alternatives they may have.  So, which bothers you?  Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law *OR* do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?
Click to expand...



She made  4 points in her post.


1. The local governments not representing their constituents. 

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

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

4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.


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


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> . and the lack of alternatives for the People.


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

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

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


----------



## Gdjjr

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Lol Freemarket libertarians for government social services cause all men are created equal pfft


Can you prove other men get here a different way? That they don't bleed red? Your ignorance about libertarians shows you're NOT well read yet you have the audacity to speak disparagingly of someone who is not only well read, but a lot more knowledgeable than you- your narrow and shallow minded attitude is sad- 
There are some things things at play here I want to point out.

1, Some things cannot be denied
2, There is but one Truth (all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights) all else is knowledge
3, Knowledge evolves
4, Knowledge isn't biased in its origin
5, Knowledge can manifest itself in ways unimaginable
6, Truth is constant. What was true yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow.
7, See number one

Here- try reading to expand (let it evolve) your knowledge base-

 STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.


*2.0 Economic Liberty*
Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Now, as I've said, at every opportunity, I don't subscribe to a Party. But, I felt compelled to show you where you're thinking? is wrong- the link provides you with no ammunition for your unfounded criticism, which sounds more like a Duopoly Party talking point than it does anything else.


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> 1. The local governments not representing their constituents.


Whose fault is that?


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> The inability of the political system to deal with it,


Then why keep doing the same thing over and over?


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


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


Opinion is not fact and anecdotes are not hard evidence.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty- Period. Unless, of course you believe in inalienable rights over unalienable rights- which you have yet to answer when asked which leaves but one alternative for this people- you prefer to not be cornered by one who espouses Liberty as the ONLY way to live- they are an UNalienable rights, not inalienable.
> 
> It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The war is actually begun!  Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
> 
> Do you know where the above came from? As has been said, the past is prelude.
Click to expand...



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


is not Liberty, it is just Weakness. 


The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I despise is a LIAR. * YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*  We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies.  And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more *POLICE STATE *intervention.   Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union.  I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV  clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned).  And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something?  What's the alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctuary was won by *right wing conservatives*.  Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws.   State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so.  The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty /* POLICE STATE */ MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call _"illegal aliens_."  *IF* those people prevail, gun owners would have *NO* recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional.  I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary.  But, then this post would be TLDR.
> 
> Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you.  Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate* POLICE STATE *could not be refuted or dismissed.  It would be official.
> 
> Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, *NOBODY* can tell them what viable alternatives they may have.  So, which bothers you?  Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law *OR* do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She made  4 points in her post.
> 
> 
> 1. The local governments not representing their constituents.
> 
> 2. The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.
> 
> 3. The inability of the political system to deal with it,
> 
> 4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> Your response addressed none of her issues, but did contain significant elements of snark and ridicule.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.


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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty- Period. Unless, of course you believe in inalienable rights over unalienable rights- which you have yet to answer when asked which leaves but one alternative for this people- you prefer to not be cornered by one who espouses Liberty as the ONLY way to live- they are an UNalienable rights, not inalienable.
> 
> It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The war is actually begun!  Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
> 
> Do you know where the above came from? As has been said, the past is prelude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The local governments not representing their constituents.
> 
> 
> 
> Whose fault is that?
Click to expand...


IMO? The political class.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inability of the political system to deal with it,
> 
> 
> 
> Then why keep doing the same thing over and over?
Click to expand...



imo? Lack of viable alternatives and constantly lying from the media.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion is not fact and anecdotes are not hard evidence.
Click to expand...



Her personal observations are valid. YOu are looking for an excuse to ignore a valid point.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I despise is a LIAR. * YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*  We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies.  And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more *POLICE STATE *intervention.   Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union.  I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV  clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned).  And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something?  What's the alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctuary was won by *right wing conservatives*.  Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws.   State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so.  The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty /* POLICE STATE */ MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call _"illegal aliens_."  *IF* those people prevail, gun owners would have *NO* recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional.  I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary.  But, then this post would be TLDR.
> 
> Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you.  Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate* POLICE STATE *could not be refuted or dismissed.  It would be official.
> 
> Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, *NOBODY* can tell them what viable alternatives they may have.  So, which bothers you?  Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law *OR* do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She made  4 points in her post.
> 
> 
> 1. The local governments not representing their constituents.
> 
> 2. The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.
> 
> 3. The inability of the political system to deal with it,
> 
> 4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> Your response addressed none of her issues, but did contain significant elements of snark and ridicule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're posting silliness.  I have not ridiculed the woman at all.  Neither am I being snarky.  She is an immigrant.  MaryL. in this thread and others is against sanctuary.  The problem is, many Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities are popping up all over America so that the feds cannot force state and local governments from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun control laws.  She doesn't want to accept that.
> 
> Local governments *ARE* representing their constituents.  It's just that the left is winning out on this immigration issue.  Why?  The people like you and MaryL. have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.  If you look at the numbers of foreigners that were entering the United States and the numbers of undocumented foreigners we had a quarter of a century ago, it's been pretty consistent in terms of the percentages.  In other words, the feds are controlling it.  They just aren't controlling it to the liking of the right.  There are *NO* alternatives to an issue you cannot articulate.  For example, if you tell me you are getting your boxers in a bunch over foreigners violating a civil misdemeanor of the law that, in a worst case scenario, nets them a $250 fine and a few months in jail, then I'd say you need Dr. Phil.  Drunk drivers pose a much more serious threat.
> 
> If you're just mad because they aren't citizens, then the government can offer them citizenship.  Insofar as immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of OUR society (she's an immigrant IIRC), then it clearly is *NOT* a legal issue.  The overwhelming majority of the so - called "_legal_" variety of immigrants don't respect your culture OR your laws.  They want to repeal all of them.  It is up to the voters to elect knowledgeable public servants that can and will pass laws consistent with the Constitution in order to deal with this.
Click to expand...



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


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

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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion is not fact and anecdotes are not hard evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Her personal observations are valid. YOu are looking for an excuse to ignore a valid point.
Click to expand...


You are unwilling to accept reality.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree- the Liberty to do business (and or associate) with whomever one pleases will expand Liberty which will afford a protection NO godvernment empty suit bureaucrat even wants to protect. Relying on another for direction means one has to follow (comply) in order to achieve protection.... and then that isn't a guarantee.
Click to expand...



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

Saying "liberty" is not an argument.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty- Period. Unless, of course you believe in inalienable rights over unalienable rights- which you have yet to answer when asked which leaves but one alternative for this people- you prefer to not be cornered by one who espouses Liberty as the ONLY way to live- they are an UNalienable rights, not inalienable.
> 
> It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The war is actually begun!  Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
> 
> Do you know where the above came from? As has been said, the past is prelude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we have a system that encourages outsiders (sic) to get some human registration papers and participate in the process, you're simply being _"legally_" over-run and the only person you can blame is yourself.  Whatever laws you contemplate leave you with making some drastic changes *OR* you are going to have to accept the direction the majority is taking us.
> 
> I don't know what I have to do in order to get you to answer three or four questions honestly, but without knowing what you're *really* complaining about, not even Jesus could help you in a prayer.
Click to expand...






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

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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I despise is a LIAR. * YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*  We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies.  And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more *POLICE STATE *intervention.   Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union.  I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV  clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned).  And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something?  What's the alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctuary was won by *right wing conservatives*.  Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws.   State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so.  The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty /* POLICE STATE */ MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call _"illegal aliens_."  *IF* those people prevail, gun owners would have *NO* recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional.  I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary.  But, then this post would be TLDR.
> 
> Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you.  Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate* POLICE STATE *could not be refuted or dismissed.  It would be official.
> 
> Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, *NOBODY* can tell them what viable alternatives they may have.  So, which bothers you?  Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law *OR* do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She made  4 points in her post.
> 
> 
> 1. The local governments not representing their constituents.
> 
> 2. The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.
> 
> 3. The inability of the political system to deal with it,
> 
> 4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> Your response addressed none of her issues, but did contain significant elements of snark and ridicule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're posting silliness.  I have not ridiculed the woman at all.  Neither am I being snarky.  She is an immigrant.  MaryL. in this thread and others is against sanctuary.  The problem is, many Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities are popping up all over America so that the feds cannot force state and local governments from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun control laws.  She doesn't want to accept that.
> 
> Local governments *ARE* representing their constituents.  It's just that the left is winning out on this immigration issue.  Why?  The people like you and MaryL. have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.  If you look at the numbers of foreigners that were entering the United States and the numbers of undocumented foreigners we had a quarter of a century ago, it's been pretty consistent in terms of the percentages.  In other words, the feds are controlling it.  They just aren't controlling it to the liking of the right.  There are *NO* alternatives to an issue you cannot articulate.  For example, if you tell me you are getting your boxers in a bunch over foreigners violating a civil misdemeanor of the law that, in a worst case scenario, nets them a $250 fine and a few months in jail, then I'd say you need Dr. Phil.  Drunk drivers pose a much more serious threat.
> 
> If you're just mad because they aren't citizens, then the government can offer them citizenship.  Insofar as immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of OUR society (she's an immigrant IIRC), then it clearly is *NOT* a legal issue.  The overwhelming majority of the so - called "_legal_" variety of immigrants don't respect your culture OR your laws.  They want to repeal all of them.  It is up to the voters to elect knowledgeable public servants that can and will pass laws consistent with the Constitution in order to deal with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our political class sabotages any candidates that want to do that. Our media lies about them. Our political class lies about their intent and the effects of their laws and policies.
> 
> 
> ANd, responding to her point with a comment about "sacred laws" is snark.
> 
> And what do you mean, "she is an immigrant"?
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty- Period. Unless, of course you believe in inalienable rights over unalienable rights- which you have yet to answer when asked which leaves but one alternative for this people- you prefer to not be cornered by one who espouses Liberty as the ONLY way to live- they are an UNalienable rights, not inalienable.
> 
> It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The war is actually begun!  Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
> 
> Do you know where the above came from? As has been said, the past is prelude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we have a system that encourages outsiders (sic) to get some human registration papers and participate in the process, you're simply being _"legally_" over-run and the only person you can blame is yourself.  Whatever laws you contemplate leave you with making some drastic changes *OR* you are going to have to accept the direction the majority is taking us.
> 
> I don't know what I have to do in order to get you to answer three or four questions honestly, but without knowing what you're *really* complaining about, not even Jesus could help you in a prayer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF the public was kept informed and the politicians honest about their intent and their policies, and their planned actions, and still won elections, then you could say, that it is just the "direction the majority is taking us. "
> 
> But none of that is happening, so blaming the Political Class and media, is valid.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree- the Liberty to do business (and or associate) with whomever one pleases will expand Liberty which will afford a protection NO godvernment empty suit bureaucrat even wants to protect. Relying on another for direction means one has to follow (comply) in order to achieve protection.... and then that isn't a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Letting outsiders invade and take over your territory, is not a protection. It will not help her at all. They are not coming to help, they are coming to advance and serve THEIR interests.
> 
> Saying "liberty" is not an argument.
Click to expand...


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

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









						INVASION Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
					

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




					thelawdictionary.org
				




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


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I despise is a LIAR. * YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*  We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies.  And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more *POLICE STATE *intervention.   Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union.  I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV  clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned).  And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something?  What's the alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctuary was won by *right wing conservatives*.  Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws.   State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so.  The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty /* POLICE STATE */ MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call _"illegal aliens_."  *IF* those people prevail, gun owners would have *NO* recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional.  I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary.  But, then this post would be TLDR.
> 
> Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you.  Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate* POLICE STATE *could not be refuted or dismissed.  It would be official.
> 
> Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, *NOBODY* can tell them what viable alternatives they may have.  So, which bothers you?  Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law *OR* do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She made  4 points in her post.
> 
> 
> 1. The local governments not representing their constituents.
> 
> 2. The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.
> 
> 3. The inability of the political system to deal with it,
> 
> 4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> Your response addressed none of her issues, but did contain significant elements of snark and ridicule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're posting silliness.  I have not ridiculed the woman at all.  Neither am I being snarky.  She is an immigrant.  MaryL. in this thread and others is against sanctuary.  The problem is, many Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities are popping up all over America so that the feds cannot force state and local governments from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun control laws.  She doesn't want to accept that.
> 
> Local governments *ARE* representing their constituents.  It's just that the left is winning out on this immigration issue.  Why?  The people like you and MaryL. have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.  If you look at the numbers of foreigners that were entering the United States and the numbers of undocumented foreigners we had a quarter of a century ago, it's been pretty consistent in terms of the percentages.  In other words, the feds are controlling it.  They just aren't controlling it to the liking of the right.  There are *NO* alternatives to an issue you cannot articulate.  For example, if you tell me you are getting your boxers in a bunch over foreigners violating a civil misdemeanor of the law that, in a worst case scenario, nets them a $250 fine and a few months in jail, then I'd say you need Dr. Phil.  Drunk drivers pose a much more serious threat.
> 
> If you're just mad because they aren't citizens, then the government can offer them citizenship.  Insofar as immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of OUR society (she's an immigrant IIRC), then it clearly is *NOT* a legal issue.  The overwhelming majority of the so - called "_legal_" variety of immigrants don't respect your culture OR your laws.  They want to repeal all of them.  It is up to the voters to elect knowledgeable public servants that can and will pass laws consistent with the Constitution in order to deal with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our political class sabotages any candidates that want to do that. Our media lies about them. Our political class lies about their intent and the effects of their laws and policies.
> 
> 
> ANd, responding to her point with a comment about "sacred laws" is snark.
> 
> And what do you mean, "she is an immigrant"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IIRC in a post on another thread I thought she said she came here "_legally_."  I might be mistaken; it may have been her parents.  In any case, she is the product of what her parents or the cults have taught her.  MaryL. consistently refuses to answer questions I've asked such as "Have you ever read the Constitution?"  When I ask if someone believes that foreigners violated some sacred law, it's not meant to be snarky, it is an honest and objective question.
> 
> Coming into the United States without papers is the federal equivalent of  making an improper U Turn.  It is, technically speaking, a federal civil misdemeanor.  The *United States Supreme Court* has gone so far as to state that* it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers*.  So, knowing that this is statutory law and has been ruled on by the United States Supreme Court, it's not the fault of any legislator at any level because the United States Supreme Court has claimed that THEY, not we, the sheeple, are the final arbiters of what the law is.  Barring a constitutional amendment, you're mostly out of options since the legislators and not even Trump can over-rule the United States Supreme Court - well, it hasn't been done since the high Court declared themselves to be the most powerful branch of government (around 1804 IIRC in Marbury v. Madison.)
> 
> Without knowing, specifically, what your objectives *really* are, I cannot offer up a solution.  I asked once before if they gave all the undocumented foreigners citizenship. would that allay your fears?  Between about 1987 and 2001 I know that those kinds of "_amnesties_" have taken place.  There were more than half a dozen or so.    Since nobody has challenged the constitutionality of those amnesties, I have to put that on the table.  Everybody seems to be at peace with those who were given citizenship.
> 
> And, I keep coming back to the fact that, like it or not, we force people to become citizens as opposed to simply exercising their *unalienable* Rights and once they outnumber us, they vote in politicians that don't see things like you and MaryL. want them to be.  And they are the majority now.  The only reason Trump is in office is due to the electoral college, NOT the popular vote.  So, today, try being honest with me and I will give you a no nonsense evaluation of what is open to you and why.
Click to expand...




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

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

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

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


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty- Period. Unless, of course you believe in inalienable rights over unalienable rights- which you have yet to answer when asked which leaves but one alternative for this people- you prefer to not be cornered by one who espouses Liberty as the ONLY way to live- they are an UNalienable rights, not inalienable.
> 
> It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The war is actually begun!  Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
> 
> Do you know where the above came from? As has been said, the past is prelude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we have a system that encourages outsiders (sic) to get some human registration papers and participate in the process, you're simply being _"legally_" over-run and the only person you can blame is yourself.  Whatever laws you contemplate leave you with making some drastic changes *OR* you are going to have to accept the direction the majority is taking us.
> 
> I don't know what I have to do in order to get you to answer three or four questions honestly, but without knowing what you're *really* complaining about, not even Jesus could help you in a prayer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF the public was kept informed and the politicians honest about their intent and their policies, and their planned actions, and still won elections, then you could say, that it is just the "direction the majority is taking us. "
> 
> But none of that is happening, so blaming the Political Class and media, is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You apparently have the equation wrong.  A Representative represents. The reason things aren't getting done is you throw out a bumper sticker at a politician and expect them to do God knows what.  I don't know what you want any more than they do.  And, if you looked at the real price tag of what you hear these dishonest dolts say, you wouldn't want to pay the price either.  One brush with the LEO community over the so called "_Patriot Act_" taught me to fully investigate the downsides to all legislation.
Click to expand...




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


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

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


Is not true.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree- the Liberty to do business (and or associate) with whomever one pleases will expand Liberty which will afford a protection NO godvernment empty suit bureaucrat even wants to protect. Relying on another for direction means one has to follow (comply) in order to achieve protection.... and then that isn't a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Letting outsiders invade and take over your territory, is not a protection. It will not help her at all. They are not coming to help, they are coming to advance and serve THEIR interests.
> 
> Saying "liberty" is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, When you politicize a discussion, you do yourself a great disservice.  Let's look at that word invade.  According to Blacks Law Dictionary an invasion is:
> 
> "_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> INVASION Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
> 
> 
> Find the legal definition of INVASION from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rights do you have that are being encroached upon by foreign workers?  We've certainly not seen any army with their rifles, forcing employers to hire those from south of he border.  What we see are Americans *willingly* doing business with foreigners.  So, the onus is now on you to show us what rights you have that are being encroached upon.
Click to expand...




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

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


Oh, and that is directly.

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


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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I despise is a LIAR. * YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*  We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies.  And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more *POLICE STATE *intervention.   Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union.  I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV  clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned).  And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something?  What's the alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctuary was won by *right wing conservatives*.  Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws.   State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so.  The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty /* POLICE STATE */ MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call _"illegal aliens_."  *IF* those people prevail, gun owners would have *NO* recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional.  I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary.  But, then this post would be TLDR.
> 
> Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you.  Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate* POLICE STATE *could not be refuted or dismissed.  It would be official.
> 
> Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, *NOBODY* can tell them what viable alternatives they may have.  So, which bothers you?  Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law *OR* do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She made  4 points in her post.
> 
> 
> 1. The local governments not representing their constituents.
> 
> 2. The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.
> 
> 3. The inability of the political system to deal with it,
> 
> 4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> Your response addressed none of her issues, but did contain significant elements of snark and ridicule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're posting silliness.  I have not ridiculed the woman at all.  Neither am I being snarky.  She is an immigrant.  MaryL. in this thread and others is against sanctuary.  The problem is, many Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities are popping up all over America so that the feds cannot force state and local governments from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun control laws.  She doesn't want to accept that.
> 
> Local governments *ARE* representing their constituents.  It's just that the left is winning out on this immigration issue.  Why?  The people like you and MaryL. have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.  If you look at the numbers of foreigners that were entering the United States and the numbers of undocumented foreigners we had a quarter of a century ago, it's been pretty consistent in terms of the percentages.  In other words, the feds are controlling it.  They just aren't controlling it to the liking of the right.  There are *NO* alternatives to an issue you cannot articulate.  For example, if you tell me you are getting your boxers in a bunch over foreigners violating a civil misdemeanor of the law that, in a worst case scenario, nets them a $250 fine and a few months in jail, then I'd say you need Dr. Phil.  Drunk drivers pose a much more serious threat.
> 
> If you're just mad because they aren't citizens, then the government can offer them citizenship.  Insofar as immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of OUR society (she's an immigrant IIRC), then it clearly is *NOT* a legal issue.  The overwhelming majority of the so - called "_legal_" variety of immigrants don't respect your culture OR your laws.  They want to repeal all of them.  It is up to the voters to elect knowledgeable public servants that can and will pass laws consistent with the Constitution in order to deal with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our political class sabotages any candidates that want to do that. Our media lies about them. Our political class lies about their intent and the effects of their laws and policies.
> 
> 
> ANd, responding to her point with a comment about "sacred laws" is snark.
> 
> And what do you mean, "she is an immigrant"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IIRC in a post on another thread I thought she said she came here "_legally_."  I might be mistaken; it may have been her parents.  In any case, she is the product of what her parents or the cults have taught her.  MaryL. consistently refuses to answer questions I've asked such as "Have you ever read the Constitution?"  When I ask if someone believes that foreigners violated some sacred law, it's not meant to be snarky, it is an honest and objective question.
> 
> Coming into the United States without papers is the federal equivalent of  making an improper U Turn.  It is, technically speaking, a federal civil misdemeanor.  The *United States Supreme Court* has gone so far as to state that* it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers*.  So, knowing that this is statutory law and has been ruled on by the United States Supreme Court, it's not the fault of any legislator at any level because the United States Supreme Court has claimed that THEY, not we, the sheeple, are the final arbiters of what the law is.  Barring a constitutional amendment, you're mostly out of options since the legislators and not even Trump can over-rule the United States Supreme Court - well, it hasn't been done since the high Court declared themselves to be the most powerful branch of government (around 1804 IIRC in Marbury v. Madison.)
> 
> Without knowing, specifically, what your objectives *really* are, I cannot offer up a solution.  I asked once before if they gave all the undocumented foreigners citizenship. would that allay your fears?  Between about 1987 and 2001 I know that those kinds of "_amnesties_" have taken place.  There were more than half a dozen or so.    Since nobody has challenged the constitutionality of those amnesties, I have to put that on the table.  Everybody seems to be at peace with those who were given citizenship.
> 
> And, I keep coming back to the fact that, like it or not, we force people to become citizens as opposed to simply exercising their *unalienable* Rights and once they outnumber us, they vote in politicians that don't see things like you and MaryL. want them to be.  And they are the majority now.  The only reason Trump is in office is due to the electoral college, NOT the popular vote.  So, today, try being honest with me and I will give you a no nonsense evaluation of what is open to you and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I comment on the reality of the issue, and you cite an Authority. That is not an answer to the merit of her point.  Outsiders are coming into her community, against her wishes and the wishes of her community. Her complaint about that is valid.
> 
> 2.  I already discussed the failure of our Political Class, as a general point. (re  your discussion of the Court and the amnesties.)
> 
> 3. We do not force people to become citizens. We forbid them to come here by law. That the law is not enforced by those who's job it is to do so, does not make it right. Your claim otherwise is very odd.
> 
> 4. Yes, they are a majority now, when combined with white liberals. It does not bode well for our civilization. Dark times are likely coming, and soon.
Click to expand...



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

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

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

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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty- Period. Unless, of course you believe in inalienable rights over unalienable rights- which you have yet to answer when asked which leaves but one alternative for this people- you prefer to not be cornered by one who espouses Liberty as the ONLY way to live- they are an UNalienable rights, not inalienable.
> 
> It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The war is actually begun!  Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
> 
> Do you know where the above came from? As has been said, the past is prelude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we have a system that encourages outsiders (sic) to get some human registration papers and participate in the process, you're simply being _"legally_" over-run and the only person you can blame is yourself.  Whatever laws you contemplate leave you with making some drastic changes *OR* you are going to have to accept the direction the majority is taking us.
> 
> I don't know what I have to do in order to get you to answer three or four questions honestly, but without knowing what you're *really* complaining about, not even Jesus could help you in a prayer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF the public was kept informed and the politicians honest about their intent and their policies, and their planned actions, and still won elections, then you could say, that it is just the "direction the majority is taking us. "
> 
> But none of that is happening, so blaming the Political Class and media, is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You apparently have the equation wrong.  A Representative represents. The reason things aren't getting done is you throw out a bumper sticker at a politician and expect them to do God knows what.  I don't know what you want any more than they do.  And, if you looked at the real price tag of what you hear these dishonest dolts say, you wouldn't want to pay the price either.  One brush with the LEO community over the so called "_Patriot Act_" taught me to fully investigate the downsides to all legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we heard the real price and made an informed decision based on that, and we choose this result, it would then be legitimate.
> 
> 
> But we have been lied to by the media and our politicians, and then they still fail to actually enforce the laws and policies that we end up with.
> 
> So, your claim that it is just the "direction the majority is taking us. "
> 
> 
> Is not true.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree- the Liberty to do business (and or associate) with whomever one pleases will expand Liberty which will afford a protection NO godvernment empty suit bureaucrat even wants to protect. Relying on another for direction means one has to follow (comply) in order to achieve protection.... and then that isn't a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Letting outsiders invade and take over your territory, is not a protection. It will not help her at all. They are not coming to help, they are coming to advance and serve THEIR interests.
> 
> Saying "liberty" is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, When you politicize a discussion, you do yourself a great disservice.  Let's look at that word invade.  According to Blacks Law Dictionary an invasion is:
> 
> "_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> INVASION Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
> 
> 
> Find the legal definition of INVASION from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rights do you have that are being encroached upon by foreign workers?  We've certainly not seen any army with their rifles, forcing employers to hire those from south of he border.  What we see are Americans *willingly* doing business with foreigners.  So, the onus is now on you to show us what rights you have that are being encroached upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The RIght of Sovereignty of the American people. The Right to decide who becomes a part of our communities. The Right to decide, to the degree with can control it, what direction our culture will develop.
> 
> Those rights, off the top of my head. There are probably some others.
> 
> 
> Oh, and that is directly.
> 
> INDIRECTLY, with the leftward drift caused by demographic shift, all rights are threatened by the invasion.
> 
> 
> Your focus on the Right of Individuals to do business with whom they want, while ignoring the Rights of everyone else involved, seems very odd.
Click to expand...


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

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

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









						Sovereignty - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




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

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


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I despise is a LIAR. * YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*  We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies.  And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more *POLICE STATE *intervention.   Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union.  I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV  clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned).  And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something?  What's the alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctuary was won by *right wing conservatives*.  Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws.   State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so.  The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty /* POLICE STATE */ MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call _"illegal aliens_."  *IF* those people prevail, gun owners would have *NO* recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional.  I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary.  But, then this post would be TLDR.
> 
> Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you.  Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate* POLICE STATE *could not be refuted or dismissed.  It would be official.
> 
> Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, *NOBODY* can tell them what viable alternatives they may have.  So, which bothers you?  Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law *OR* do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She made  4 points in her post.
> 
> 
> 1. The local governments not representing their constituents.
> 
> 2. The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.
> 
> 3. The inability of the political system to deal with it,
> 
> 4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> Your response addressed none of her issues, but did contain significant elements of snark and ridicule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're posting silliness.  I have not ridiculed the woman at all.  Neither am I being snarky.  She is an immigrant.  MaryL. in this thread and others is against sanctuary.  The problem is, many Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities are popping up all over America so that the feds cannot force state and local governments from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun control laws.  She doesn't want to accept that.
> 
> Local governments *ARE* representing their constituents.  It's just that the left is winning out on this immigration issue.  Why?  The people like you and MaryL. have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.  If you look at the numbers of foreigners that were entering the United States and the numbers of undocumented foreigners we had a quarter of a century ago, it's been pretty consistent in terms of the percentages.  In other words, the feds are controlling it.  They just aren't controlling it to the liking of the right.  There are *NO* alternatives to an issue you cannot articulate.  For example, if you tell me you are getting your boxers in a bunch over foreigners violating a civil misdemeanor of the law that, in a worst case scenario, nets them a $250 fine and a few months in jail, then I'd say you need Dr. Phil.  Drunk drivers pose a much more serious threat.
> 
> If you're just mad because they aren't citizens, then the government can offer them citizenship.  Insofar as immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of OUR society (she's an immigrant IIRC), then it clearly is *NOT* a legal issue.  The overwhelming majority of the so - called "_legal_" variety of immigrants don't respect your culture OR your laws.  They want to repeal all of them.  It is up to the voters to elect knowledgeable public servants that can and will pass laws consistent with the Constitution in order to deal with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our political class sabotages any candidates that want to do that. Our media lies about them. Our political class lies about their intent and the effects of their laws and policies.
> 
> 
> ANd, responding to her point with a comment about "sacred laws" is snark.
> 
> And what do you mean, "she is an immigrant"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IIRC in a post on another thread I thought she said she came here "_legally_."  I might be mistaken; it may have been her parents.  In any case, she is the product of what her parents or the cults have taught her.  MaryL. consistently refuses to answer questions I've asked such as "Have you ever read the Constitution?"  When I ask if someone believes that foreigners violated some sacred law, it's not meant to be snarky, it is an honest and objective question.
> 
> Coming into the United States without papers is the federal equivalent of  making an improper U Turn.  It is, technically speaking, a federal civil misdemeanor.  The *United States Supreme Court* has gone so far as to state that* it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers*.  So, knowing that this is statutory law and has been ruled on by the United States Supreme Court, it's not the fault of any legislator at any level because the United States Supreme Court has claimed that THEY, not we, the sheeple, are the final arbiters of what the law is.  Barring a constitutional amendment, you're mostly out of options since the legislators and not even Trump can over-rule the United States Supreme Court - well, it hasn't been done since the high Court declared themselves to be the most powerful branch of government (around 1804 IIRC in Marbury v. Madison.)
> 
> Without knowing, specifically, what your objectives *really* are, I cannot offer up a solution.  I asked once before if they gave all the undocumented foreigners citizenship. would that allay your fears?  Between about 1987 and 2001 I know that those kinds of "_amnesties_" have taken place.  There were more than half a dozen or so.    Since nobody has challenged the constitutionality of those amnesties, I have to put that on the table.  Everybody seems to be at peace with those who were given citizenship.
> 
> And, I keep coming back to the fact that, like it or not, we force people to become citizens as opposed to simply exercising their *unalienable* Rights and once they outnumber us, they vote in politicians that don't see things like you and MaryL. want them to be.  And they are the majority now.  The only reason Trump is in office is due to the electoral college, NOT the popular vote.  So, today, try being honest with me and I will give you a no nonsense evaluation of what is open to you and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I comment on the reality of the issue, and you cite an Authority. That is not an answer to the merit of her point.  Outsiders are coming into her community, against her wishes and the wishes of her community. Her complaint about that is valid.
> 
> 2.  I already discussed the failure of our Political Class, as a general point. (re  your discussion of the Court and the amnesties.)
> 
> 3. We do not force people to become citizens. We forbid them to come here by law. That the law is not enforced by those who's job it is to do so, does not make it right. Your claim otherwise is very odd.
> 
> 4. Yes, they are a majority now, when combined with white liberals. It does not bode well for our civilization. Dark times are likely coming, and soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You don't know that the complaint she has is valid.  She may have gotten outvoted at the polls.  Did you think about that?
> 
> 2)  Whatever you said is non-responsive in that reply
> 
> 3)  So, you think they are forbidden.  Common sense has shown that you cannot criminalize Liberty and the courts have ruled that once in this country it is not a crime.  I'm just stating facts here.  You've wasted how much bandwidth trying to convince me that only citizens have Rights????????
> 
> 4)  If you're agreeing that they are the majority with their liberal co-conspirators, then common sense should dictate that you have to think outside the box because popularity contests don't favor your position.  So, can I deduce from this you don't want the undocumented to become citizens?
Click to expand...




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

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


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

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


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty- Period. Unless, of course you believe in inalienable rights over unalienable rights- which you have yet to answer when asked which leaves but one alternative for this people- you prefer to not be cornered by one who espouses Liberty as the ONLY way to live- they are an UNalienable rights, not inalienable.
> 
> It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The war is actually begun!  Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
> 
> Do you know where the above came from? As has been said, the past is prelude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we have a system that encourages outsiders (sic) to get some human registration papers and participate in the process, you're simply being _"legally_" over-run and the only person you can blame is yourself.  Whatever laws you contemplate leave you with making some drastic changes *OR* you are going to have to accept the direction the majority is taking us.
> 
> I don't know what I have to do in order to get you to answer three or four questions honestly, but without knowing what you're *really* complaining about, not even Jesus could help you in a prayer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF the public was kept informed and the politicians honest about their intent and their policies, and their planned actions, and still won elections, then you could say, that it is just the "direction the majority is taking us. "
> 
> But none of that is happening, so blaming the Political Class and media, is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You apparently have the equation wrong.  A Representative represents. The reason things aren't getting done is you throw out a bumper sticker at a politician and expect them to do God knows what.  I don't know what you want any more than they do.  And, if you looked at the real price tag of what you hear these dishonest dolts say, you wouldn't want to pay the price either.  One brush with the LEO community over the so called "_Patriot Act_" taught me to fully investigate the downsides to all legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we heard the real price and made an informed decision based on that, and we choose this result, it would then be legitimate.
> 
> 
> But we have been lied to by the media and our politicians, and then they still fail to actually enforce the laws and policies that we end up with.
> 
> So, your claim that it is just the "direction the majority is taking us. "
> 
> 
> Is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, your responses do not align with the post you are quoting.  What "_result_" are you talking about?
> 
> 2)  The laws are being enforced.  You simply do not understand them.  You can't just "_deport_" people.  You can't just round them up either.  The United States Supreme Court said so.  You have to have probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime before you can start hassling them.  And, being in the United States without papers has been ruled by the United States Supreme Court *NOT *to be a crime.  What law do you want enforced?  Forget it.  You can't even tell me WHY you are so obsessed with the issue.
Click to expand...




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

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


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree- the Liberty to do business (and or associate) with whomever one pleases will expand Liberty which will afford a protection NO godvernment empty suit bureaucrat even wants to protect. Relying on another for direction means one has to follow (comply) in order to achieve protection.... and then that isn't a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Letting outsiders invade and take over your territory, is not a protection. It will not help her at all. They are not coming to help, they are coming to advance and serve THEIR interests.
> 
> Saying "liberty" is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, When you politicize a discussion, you do yourself a great disservice.  Let's look at that word invade.  According to Blacks Law Dictionary an invasion is:
> 
> "_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> INVASION Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
> 
> 
> Find the legal definition of INVASION from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rights do you have that are being encroached upon by foreign workers?  We've certainly not seen any army with their rifles, forcing employers to hire those from south of he border.  What we see are Americans *willingly* doing business with foreigners.  So, the onus is now on you to show us what rights you have that are being encroached upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The RIght of Sovereignty of the American people. The Right to decide who becomes a part of our communities. The Right to decide, to the degree with can control it, what direction our culture will develop.
> 
> Those rights, off the top of my head. There are probably some others.
> 
> 
> Oh, and that is directly.
> 
> INDIRECTLY, with the leftward drift caused by demographic shift, all rights are threatened by the invasion.
> 
> 
> Your focus on the Right of Individuals to do business with whom they want, while ignoring the Rights of everyone else involved, seems very odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The decisions have been made.
Click to expand...


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



> But, really, dude you are making incoherent statements.



No, I have not. 




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




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





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



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

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




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



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




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



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




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



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



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




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





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




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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I despise is a LIAR. * YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*  We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies.  And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more *POLICE STATE *intervention.   Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union.  I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV  clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned).  And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something?  What's the alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctuary was won by *right wing conservatives*.  Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws.   State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so.  The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty /* POLICE STATE */ MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call _"illegal aliens_."  *IF* those people prevail, gun owners would have *NO* recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional.  I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary.  But, then this post would be TLDR.
> 
> Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you.  Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate* POLICE STATE *could not be refuted or dismissed.  It would be official.
> 
> Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, *NOBODY* can tell them what viable alternatives they may have.  So, which bothers you?  Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law *OR* do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She made  4 points in her post.
> 
> 
> 1. The local governments not representing their constituents.
> 
> 2. The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.
> 
> 3. The inability of the political system to deal with it,
> 
> 4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> Your response addressed none of her issues, but did contain significant elements of snark and ridicule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're posting silliness.  I have not ridiculed the woman at all.  Neither am I being snarky.  She is an immigrant.  MaryL. in this thread and others is against sanctuary.  The problem is, many Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities are popping up all over America so that the feds cannot force state and local governments from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun control laws.  She doesn't want to accept that.
> 
> Local governments *ARE* representing their constituents.  It's just that the left is winning out on this immigration issue.  Why?  The people like you and MaryL. have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.  If you look at the numbers of foreigners that were entering the United States and the numbers of undocumented foreigners we had a quarter of a century ago, it's been pretty consistent in terms of the percentages.  In other words, the feds are controlling it.  They just aren't controlling it to the liking of the right.  There are *NO* alternatives to an issue you cannot articulate.  For example, if you tell me you are getting your boxers in a bunch over foreigners violating a civil misdemeanor of the law that, in a worst case scenario, nets them a $250 fine and a few months in jail, then I'd say you need Dr. Phil.  Drunk drivers pose a much more serious threat.
> 
> If you're just mad because they aren't citizens, then the government can offer them citizenship.  Insofar as immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of OUR society (she's an immigrant IIRC), then it clearly is *NOT* a legal issue.  The overwhelming majority of the so - called "_legal_" variety of immigrants don't respect your culture OR your laws.  They want to repeal all of them.  It is up to the voters to elect knowledgeable public servants that can and will pass laws consistent with the Constitution in order to deal with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our political class sabotages any candidates that want to do that. Our media lies about them. Our political class lies about their intent and the effects of their laws and policies.
> 
> 
> ANd, responding to her point with a comment about "sacred laws" is snark.
> 
> And what do you mean, "she is an immigrant"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IIRC in a post on another thread I thought she said she came here "_legally_."  I might be mistaken; it may have been her parents.  In any case, she is the product of what her parents or the cults have taught her.  MaryL. consistently refuses to answer questions I've asked such as "Have you ever read the Constitution?"  When I ask if someone believes that foreigners violated some sacred law, it's not meant to be snarky, it is an honest and objective question.
> 
> Coming into the United States without papers is the federal equivalent of  making an improper U Turn.  It is, technically speaking, a federal civil misdemeanor.  The *United States Supreme Court* has gone so far as to state that* it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers*.  So, knowing that this is statutory law and has been ruled on by the United States Supreme Court, it's not the fault of any legislator at any level because the United States Supreme Court has claimed that THEY, not we, the sheeple, are the final arbiters of what the law is.  Barring a constitutional amendment, you're mostly out of options since the legislators and not even Trump can over-rule the United States Supreme Court - well, it hasn't been done since the high Court declared themselves to be the most powerful branch of government (around 1804 IIRC in Marbury v. Madison.)
> 
> Without knowing, specifically, what your objectives *really* are, I cannot offer up a solution.  I asked once before if they gave all the undocumented foreigners citizenship. would that allay your fears?  Between about 1987 and 2001 I know that those kinds of "_amnesties_" have taken place.  There were more than half a dozen or so.    Since nobody has challenged the constitutionality of those amnesties, I have to put that on the table.  Everybody seems to be at peace with those who were given citizenship.
> 
> And, I keep coming back to the fact that, like it or not, we force people to become citizens as opposed to simply exercising their *unalienable* Rights and once they outnumber us, they vote in politicians that don't see things like you and MaryL. want them to be.  And they are the majority now.  The only reason Trump is in office is due to the electoral college, NOT the popular vote.  So, today, try being honest with me and I will give you a no nonsense evaluation of what is open to you and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I comment on the reality of the issue, and you cite an Authority. That is not an answer to the merit of her point.  Outsiders are coming into her community, against her wishes and the wishes of her community. Her complaint about that is valid.
> 
> 2.  I already discussed the failure of our Political Class, as a general point. (re  your discussion of the Court and the amnesties.)
> 
> 3. We do not force people to become citizens. We forbid them to come here by law. That the law is not enforced by those who's job it is to do so, does not make it right. Your claim otherwise is very odd.
> 
> 4. Yes, they are a majority now, when combined with white liberals. It does not bode well for our civilization. Dark times are likely coming, and soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You don't know that the complaint she has is valid.  She may have gotten outvoted at the polls.  Did you think about that?
> 
> 2)  Whatever you said is non-responsive in that reply
> 
> 3)  So, you think they are forbidden.  Common sense has shown that you cannot criminalize Liberty and the courts have ruled that once in this country it is not a crime.  I'm just stating facts here.  You've wasted how much bandwidth trying to convince me that only citizens have Rights????????
> 
> 4)  If you're agreeing that they are the majority with their liberal co-conspirators, then common sense should dictate that you have to think outside the box because popularity contests don't favor your position.  So, can I deduce from this you don't want the undocumented to become citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I have no reason to doubt her personal observations. Her interest in not having that happen to her community is valid. Your dismissal of her, is not.
> 
> 2. No, it wasn't. YOUR dismissal of my point, was a non-response. My point about this being the failure of the Political Class and the Media stands.
> 
> 
> 3. You are jumping all over the place. First you say "Liberty" like that is an argument. Then you cite common sense and the law in the same sentence, which is hard to take seriously. Then you pontificate some.  The fact remains, we do not force them to become citizens. We forbid them to come here. They are here against our wishes.
> 
> 4. At this point, I still believe if the people could be properly informed on the real situation, I believe we could still win a majority and get things done, though the window is closing fast. And no, I do not want the undocumented to become citizens. I want them to go home.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree- the Liberty to do business (and or associate) with whomever one pleases will expand Liberty which will afford a protection NO godvernment empty suit bureaucrat even wants to protect. Relying on another for direction means one has to follow (comply) in order to achieve protection.... and then that isn't a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Letting outsiders invade and take over your territory, is not a protection. It will not help her at all. They are not coming to help, they are coming to advance and serve THEIR interests.
> 
> Saying "liberty" is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, When you politicize a discussion, you do yourself a great disservice.  Let's look at that word invade.  According to Blacks Law Dictionary an invasion is:
> 
> "_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> INVASION Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
> 
> 
> Find the legal definition of INVASION from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rights do you have that are being encroached upon by foreign workers?  We've certainly not seen any army with their rifles, forcing employers to hire those from south of he border.  What we see are Americans *willingly* doing business with foreigners.  So, the onus is now on you to show us what rights you have that are being encroached upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The RIght of Sovereignty of the American people. The Right to decide who becomes a part of our communities. The Right to decide, to the degree with can control it, what direction our culture will develop.
> 
> Those rights, off the top of my head. There are probably some others.
> 
> 
> Oh, and that is directly.
> 
> INDIRECTLY, with the leftward drift caused by demographic shift, all rights are threatened by the invasion.
> 
> 
> Your focus on the Right of Individuals to do business with whom they want, while ignoring the Rights of everyone else involved, seems very odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The decisions have been made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? THe decision as to who enters our communities? Correct. And those decisions are being rendered moot by the forcible invasion of our territory by unwelcome outsiders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, really, dude you are making incoherent statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I have not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start over:
> 
> MY observation is that whether or not a foreigner comes or goes within the *state* is the *STATE'S JURISDICTION.*  You brought up a "Right of Sovereignty of the American People."  What in the Hell is that?  According to Wikipedia:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the right of a people to rule themselves. IN this case, America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that the left has you outvoted.  It is within the power of a *state* as to who comes and goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is unworkable, as there are no internal boundaries. California would just allow all of Latin America to enter and that would be the end of the country.
> 
> I've pointed this out before, and you response by saying "liberty" or citing the "Supreme Court", but no addressing the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep wanting to revert to emotional arguments like that invasion B.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Invasion is the proper term. Your dismissal of it, is actually the emotional response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot articulate what it is that is *really* bothering you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot is bothering me. You are jumping all over the place. You can't explain why I should not be bothered. Saying Liberty a lot, is not an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more government control you beg for in an era where you are the minority, the worse things becomes for every free person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Beg" is an emotional argument. And the federal government already has this role, immigration policy, and has for a long time. I am not asking for more control, just better policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would help if you'd quit using emotion laden buzz words and political rhetoric and simply answer my questions with the specificity asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dismissing my arguments as buzzwords, is kind of a emotional rhetoric tactic in itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What legal interest do you have in my private financial transactions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on whether your actions are relevant to my interests. Your desire to be an island, is denied.
Click to expand...



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

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

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





__





						Trump's racist roots?
					

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




					defendingthetruth.com
				




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


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._" Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol amen your idiot buddy there
> How is  defending illegals collecting benefits from  state  government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems
> 
> Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect
> 
> ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .
> 
> Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot
> 
> You guys are shot and living in dreamworld
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I despise is a LIAR. * YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.*  We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies.  And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more *POLICE STATE *intervention.   Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union.  I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV  clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned).  And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something?  What's the alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctuary was won by *right wing conservatives*.  Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws.   State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so.  The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty /* POLICE STATE */ MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call _"illegal aliens_."  *IF* those people prevail, gun owners would have *NO* recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional.  I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary.  But, then this post would be TLDR.
> 
> Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you.  Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate* POLICE STATE *could not be refuted or dismissed.  It would be official.
> 
> Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, *NOBODY* can tell them what viable alternatives they may have.  So, which bothers you?  Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law *OR* do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She made  4 points in her post.
> 
> 
> 1. The local governments not representing their constituents.
> 
> 2. The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.
> 
> 3. The inability of the political system to deal with it,
> 
> 4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.
> 
> 
> Your response addressed none of her issues, but did contain significant elements of snark and ridicule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're posting silliness.  I have not ridiculed the woman at all.  Neither am I being snarky.  She is an immigrant.  MaryL. in this thread and others is against sanctuary.  The problem is, many Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities are popping up all over America so that the feds cannot force state and local governments from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun control laws.  She doesn't want to accept that.
> 
> Local governments *ARE* representing their constituents.  It's just that the left is winning out on this immigration issue.  Why?  The people like you and MaryL. have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.  If you look at the numbers of foreigners that were entering the United States and the numbers of undocumented foreigners we had a quarter of a century ago, it's been pretty consistent in terms of the percentages.  In other words, the feds are controlling it.  They just aren't controlling it to the liking of the right.  There are *NO* alternatives to an issue you cannot articulate.  For example, if you tell me you are getting your boxers in a bunch over foreigners violating a civil misdemeanor of the law that, in a worst case scenario, nets them a $250 fine and a few months in jail, then I'd say you need Dr. Phil.  Drunk drivers pose a much more serious threat.
> 
> If you're just mad because they aren't citizens, then the government can offer them citizenship.  Insofar as immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of OUR society (she's an immigrant IIRC), then it clearly is *NOT* a legal issue.  The overwhelming majority of the so - called "_legal_" variety of immigrants don't respect your culture OR your laws.  They want to repeal all of them.  It is up to the voters to elect knowledgeable public servants that can and will pass laws consistent with the Constitution in order to deal with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our political class sabotages any candidates that want to do that. Our media lies about them. Our political class lies about their intent and the effects of their laws and policies.
> 
> 
> ANd, responding to her point with a comment about "sacred laws" is snark.
> 
> And what do you mean, "she is an immigrant"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IIRC in a post on another thread I thought she said she came here "_legally_."  I might be mistaken; it may have been her parents.  In any case, she is the product of what her parents or the cults have taught her.  MaryL. consistently refuses to answer questions I've asked such as "Have you ever read the Constitution?"  When I ask if someone believes that foreigners violated some sacred law, it's not meant to be snarky, it is an honest and objective question.
> 
> Coming into the United States without papers is the federal equivalent of  making an improper U Turn.  It is, technically speaking, a federal civil misdemeanor.  The *United States Supreme Court* has gone so far as to state that* it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers*.  So, knowing that this is statutory law and has been ruled on by the United States Supreme Court, it's not the fault of any legislator at any level because the United States Supreme Court has claimed that THEY, not we, the sheeple, are the final arbiters of what the law is.  Barring a constitutional amendment, you're mostly out of options since the legislators and not even Trump can over-rule the United States Supreme Court - well, it hasn't been done since the high Court declared themselves to be the most powerful branch of government (around 1804 IIRC in Marbury v. Madison.)
> 
> Without knowing, specifically, what your objectives *really* are, I cannot offer up a solution.  I asked once before if they gave all the undocumented foreigners citizenship. would that allay your fears?  Between about 1987 and 2001 I know that those kinds of "_amnesties_" have taken place.  There were more than half a dozen or so.    Since nobody has challenged the constitutionality of those amnesties, I have to put that on the table.  Everybody seems to be at peace with those who were given citizenship.
> 
> And, I keep coming back to the fact that, like it or not, we force people to become citizens as opposed to simply exercising their *unalienable* Rights and once they outnumber us, they vote in politicians that don't see things like you and MaryL. want them to be.  And they are the majority now.  The only reason Trump is in office is due to the electoral college, NOT the popular vote.  So, today, try being honest with me and I will give you a no nonsense evaluation of what is open to you and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I comment on the reality of the issue, and you cite an Authority. That is not an answer to the merit of her point.  Outsiders are coming into her community, against her wishes and the wishes of her community. Her complaint about that is valid.
> 
> 2.  I already discussed the failure of our Political Class, as a general point. (re  your discussion of the Court and the amnesties.)
> 
> 3. We do not force people to become citizens. We forbid them to come here by law. That the law is not enforced by those who's job it is to do so, does not make it right. Your claim otherwise is very odd.
> 
> 4. Yes, they are a majority now, when combined with white liberals. It does not bode well for our civilization. Dark times are likely coming, and soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You don't know that the complaint she has is valid.  She may have gotten outvoted at the polls.  Did you think about that?
> 
> 2)  Whatever you said is non-responsive in that reply
> 
> 3)  So, you think they are forbidden.  Common sense has shown that you cannot criminalize Liberty and the courts have ruled that once in this country it is not a crime.  I'm just stating facts here.  You've wasted how much bandwidth trying to convince me that only citizens have Rights????????
> 
> 4)  If you're agreeing that they are the majority with their liberal co-conspirators, then common sense should dictate that you have to think outside the box because popularity contests don't favor your position.  So, can I deduce from this you don't want the undocumented to become citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I have no reason to doubt her personal observations. Her interest in not having that happen to her community is valid. Your dismissal of her, is not.
> 
> 2. No, it wasn't. YOUR dismissal of my point, was a non-response. My point about this being the failure of the Political Class and the Media stands.
> 
> 
> 3. You are jumping all over the place. First you say "Liberty" like that is an argument. Then you cite common sense and the law in the same sentence, which is hard to take seriously. Then you pontificate some.  The fact remains, we do not force them to become citizens. We forbid them to come here. They are here against our wishes.
> 
> 4. At this point, I still believe if the people could be properly informed on the real situation, I believe we could still win a majority and get things done, though the window is closing fast. And no, I do not want the undocumented to become citizens. I want them to go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Don't try to personalize everything, Correll.  Telling people they don't have a case; they got outvoted; the people spoke, etc. is not dismissing people.  It's giving them the facts.  You don't want the window to close, but if what you're doing is not yielding the results you want, then maybe you should learn how to rephrase your concern so that the proper remedy will become obvious to you (and MaryL.)
Click to expand...



I did not personalize it. You did dismiss her.




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




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




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




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






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




I agree.



> Due to the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment, nobody has any *unalienable* Rights.  Our country was founded on that premise of *unalienable *rights and our laws were judged and ruled on accordingly.  One of my favorites, that illustrates what the Bill of Rights is about is the gun issue that was ruled on in the Cruikshank ruling.  Read what the United States Supreme Court wrote:
> 
> "_The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States...
> ...The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence._" _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876),
> 
> MAGA,  Don't know what that means.  But, I'm about to tell you the way it really is.  If twelve paragraphs are going to be TLDR, you may want to answer my questions.  Otherwise, since you like to criticize me and never answer me, I'll have to presume you know the material I will post - and you just don't want to tell us what you really believe.  But, know this Correll:  The MAGA people jump onto the bandwagon when they face social liberals.  They start that liberal mantra, I don't care where you came from, who you are, what race you are what religion you are... yada, yada, yada and then give us this bullshit that they expect people to come here "_legally_" as they call it.  When they do that, it says to me that they are either pathological liars or complete idiots that chant bumper sticker phrases, unaware of what they just endorsed.  I'll be damned if I know where you fit in.




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

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


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


I recognize this is unlikely to happen.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,
> 
> 
> is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.
> 
> 
> The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree- the Liberty to do business (and or associate) with whomever one pleases will expand Liberty which will afford a protection NO godvernment empty suit bureaucrat even wants to protect. Relying on another for direction means one has to follow (comply) in order to achieve protection.... and then that isn't a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Letting outsiders invade and take over your territory, is not a protection. It will not help her at all. They are not coming to help, they are coming to advance and serve THEIR interests.
> 
> Saying "liberty" is not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, When you politicize a discussion, you do yourself a great disservice.  Let's look at that word invade.  According to Blacks Law Dictionary an invasion is:
> 
> "_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> INVASION Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
> 
> 
> Find the legal definition of INVASION from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rights do you have that are being encroached upon by foreign workers?  We've certainly not seen any army with their rifles, forcing employers to hire those from south of he border.  What we see are Americans *willingly* doing business with foreigners.  So, the onus is now on you to show us what rights you have that are being encroached upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The RIght of Sovereignty of the American people. The Right to decide who becomes a part of our communities. The Right to decide, to the degree with can control it, what direction our culture will develop.
> 
> Those rights, off the top of my head. There are probably some others.
> 
> 
> Oh, and that is directly.
> 
> INDIRECTLY, with the leftward drift caused by demographic shift, all rights are threatened by the invasion.
> 
> 
> Your focus on the Right of Individuals to do business with whom they want, while ignoring the Rights of everyone else involved, seems very odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The decisions have been made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? THe decision as to who enters our communities? Correct. And those decisions are being rendered moot by the forcible invasion of our territory by unwelcome outsiders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, really, dude you are making incoherent statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I have not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start over:
> 
> MY observation is that whether or not a foreigner comes or goes within the *state* is the *STATE'S JURISDICTION.*  You brought up a "Right of Sovereignty of the American People."  What in the Hell is that?  According to Wikipedia:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the right of a people to rule themselves. IN this case, America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that the left has you outvoted.  It is within the power of a *state* as to who comes and goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is unworkable, as there are no internal boundaries. California would just allow all of Latin America to enter and that would be the end of the country.
> 
> I've pointed this out before, and you response by saying "liberty" or citing the "Supreme Court", but no addressing the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep wanting to revert to emotional arguments like that invasion B.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Invasion is the proper term. Your dismissal of it, is actually the emotional response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot articulate what it is that is *really* bothering you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot is bothering me. You are jumping all over the place. You can't explain why I should not be bothered. Saying Liberty a lot, is not an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more government control you beg for in an era where you are the minority, the worse things becomes for every free person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Beg" is an emotional argument. And the federal government already has this role, immigration policy, and has for a long time. I am not asking for more control, just better policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would help if you'd quit using emotion laden buzz words and political rhetoric and simply answer my questions with the specificity asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dismissing my arguments as buzzwords, is kind of a emotional rhetoric tactic in itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What legal interest do you have in my private financial transactions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on whether your actions are relevant to my interests. Your desire to be an island, is denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, I'm done with this multi quote bullshit.  It is dishonest; nobody except you and I will even try to keep up with it.  You aren't saying anything new.  You keep bitching about people dismissing you and you keep crying because you fail to state your case.  I'll give you one more chance then tell everyone who gives a rip where you might stand - and if you don't you're ignorant for not being on that page.  You have basically three options for success, so since you won't tell me your bottom line, I will tell people what it is.
> 
> For example I asked you a direct question.  What legal interest do you have in my financial transactions?  Your answer is, whether you realize it or not, a National Socialist or socialist reply.  Now, when you and the dim wit that has made 100 false accusations gets called on his B.S. he cannot defend what he just said.
> 
> You have no financial interest in my private dealings.  In our constitutional Republic, I have an *unalienable* Right to own property.  In a socialist country, the people decide, as a whole, what is acceptable and unacceptable for the individual.  That is why the talking points the MAGA people use can be  traced directly back to NATIONAL SOCIALISTS:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's racist roots?
> 
> 
> Everybody has their area of expertise.  What I'm going to share is not based upon Internet B.S. but what I know.  At one time or another I met most of the principal characters and I only know of one man that is alive today who knows and writes about this subject.  I'll do it in segments so you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defendingthetruth.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll presume that you know the above material.  If you still accept that position, then I can tell you what options are left for you.  But, from what you've argued thus far, your talking points put you in that camp.  Not everybody with a beef against the foreigners swaps spit with the above groups and individuals.  So, if you want another view, I can tell it to you.
Click to expand...


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

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


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


And "Trump's racist past"? 


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

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


but it does not invalidate the idea. 


It is just the Logical Fallacy of Attacking the Messenger.


----------



## Likkmee

Correll said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free access to America, is not one of those rights, for non-Americans.
> 
> 
> The same way that free access to Mexico is not a right for Americans.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Gdjjr

Likkmee said:


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


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


----------



## Correll

Likkmee said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free access to America, is not one of those rights, for non-Americans.
> 
> 
> The same way that free access to Mexico is not a right for Americans.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fly down Mezko way and overstay your return ticket and within a couple months or so you'll get a visit and an escort.
> Down here it's about 3 months overstay but when you go to exit you better have $300 cash for your ignoring the Visa requirement. If you want to hang over the 90 days you can call immigration and tell them why(working on your place, medical-dental stuff, waiting on a cheaper flight) and they'll either give you a confirmation # or say u GTFO in under 72 hours
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fly down Mezko way and overstay your return ticket and within a couple months or so you'll get a visit and an escort.
> Down here it's about 3 months overstay but when you go to exit you better have $300 cash for your ignoring the Visa requirement. If you want to hang over the 90 days you can call immigration and tell them why(working on your place, medical-dental stuff, waiting on a cheaper flight) and they'll either give you a confirmation # or say u GTFO in under 72 hours
> 
> 
> 
> What mexicans do in their own country is of no concern to me- however, if you can produce evidence that their Declaration of Independence has a similar philosophy, then they too are hypocrites, just like many here- which  does what?
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Crixus

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Please take back your Mexicans
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 319984
> 
> View attachment 319988




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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

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

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

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

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

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

"_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of *permanent residence*_."









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

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




					thelawdictionary.org
				




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

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






						Trump's racist roots?
					

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




					defendingthetruth.com


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fly down Mezko way and overstay your return ticket and within a couple months or so you'll get a visit and an escort.
> Down here it's about 3 months overstay but when you go to exit you better have $300 cash for your ignoring the Visa requirement. If you want to hang over the 90 days you can call immigration and tell them why(working on your place, medical-dental stuff, waiting on a cheaper flight) and they'll either give you a confirmation # or say u GTFO in under 72 hours
> 
> 
> 
> What mexicans do in their own country is of no concern to me- however, if you can produce evidence that their Declaration of Independence has a similar philosophy, then they too are hypocrites, just like many here- which  does what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your refusal to discuss the reality of the issue of borders and illegal immigration, is not good.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fly down Mezko way and overstay your return ticket and within a couple months or so you'll get a visit and an escort.
> Down here it's about 3 months overstay but when you go to exit you better have $300 cash for your ignoring the Visa requirement. If you want to hang over the 90 days you can call immigration and tell them why(working on your place, medical-dental stuff, waiting on a cheaper flight) and they'll either give you a confirmation # or say u GTFO in under 72 hours
> 
> 
> 
> What mexicans do in their own country is of no concern to me- however, if you can produce evidence that their Declaration of Independence has a similar philosophy, then they too are hypocrites, just like many here- which  does what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your refusal to discuss the reality of the issue of borders and illegal immigration, is not good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He cannot discuss the reality of the issue with a poster like you who is out of touch with reality and afraid to engage in *honest* discourse.  Maybe Gdjjr sees how these exchanges end with that multi quote B.S. and I can almost guarantee he isn't reading the exchanges between you and I - nor is anyone else.  So, why engage in a waste of bandwidth?
Click to expand...



Someone made a comment on how Mexico, the nation that is mostly the problem with the INVASION of the US, deals with overstays,


and he refused to discuss it.  It had nothing to do with me.


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter Rockwell said:


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


Actually, I've read them all- I'll admit I don't read all the multi-quote stuff if it's very long. But, I will do multi-quote myself on one or two setences or paragraphs- 

I've read them all because I respect your knowledge-


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> and he refused to discuss it. It had nothing to do with me.


He? I replied to his posit-


Gdjjr said:


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


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> NO ONE not an American citizen has a right to come here.


Can you provide evidence of that? UNalienable rights have no citizenship caveat- INalienable rights are whatever the godvernment says they are. UNalienable rights was the philosophy THIS Country was founded on- was being key- nanny statist (look in the mirror) have proven, up to the highest "official" they don't- group think has won the day- independence has been bastardized into co-dependence-
Is that a road you really want to go down? I have to guess it is since I've asked you, numerous times, if you believe in UNalienable rights and, guess what? YOU refuse to answer.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fly down Mezko way and overstay your return ticket and within a couple months or so you'll get a visit and an escort.
> Down here it's about 3 months overstay but when you go to exit you better have $300 cash for your ignoring the Visa requirement. If you want to hang over the 90 days you can call immigration and tell them why(working on your place, medical-dental stuff, waiting on a cheaper flight) and they'll either give you a confirmation # or say u GTFO in under 72 hours
> 
> 
> 
> What mexicans do in their own country is of no concern to me- however, if you can produce evidence that their Declaration of Independence has a similar philosophy, then they too are hypocrites, just like many here- which  does what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your refusal to discuss the reality of the issue of borders and illegal immigration, is not good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He cannot discuss the reality of the issue with a poster like you who is out of touch with reality and afraid to engage in *honest* discourse.  Maybe Gdjjr sees how these exchanges end with that multi quote B.S. and I can almost guarantee he isn't reading the exchanges between you and I - nor is anyone else.  So, why engage in a waste of bandwidth?
Click to expand...



If you post a long post, and I don't address a point, you will count is an a concession, will you not?


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> and he refused to discuss it. It had nothing to do with me.
> 
> 
> 
> He? I replied to his posit-
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What mexicans do in their own country is of no concern to me- however, if you can produce evidence that their Declaration of Independence has a similar philosophy, then they too are hypocrites, just like many here- which does what?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Saying it is of no concern to you, is not, imo, discussing it.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO ONE not an American citizen has a right to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide evidence of that? UNalienable rights have no citizenship caveat-...
Click to expand...



Evidence? What type of evidence would you accept?


----------



## Deplorable Yankee




----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fly down Mezko way and overstay your return ticket and within a couple months or so you'll get a visit and an escort.
> Down here it's about 3 months overstay but when you go to exit you better have $300 cash for your ignoring the Visa requirement. If you want to hang over the 90 days you can call immigration and tell them why(working on your place, medical-dental stuff, waiting on a cheaper flight) and they'll either give you a confirmation # or say u GTFO in under 72 hours
> 
> 
> 
> What mexicans do in their own country is of no concern to me- however, if you can produce evidence that their Declaration of Independence has a similar philosophy, then they too are hypocrites, just like many here- which  does what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your refusal to discuss the reality of the issue of borders and illegal immigration, is not good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He cannot discuss the reality of the issue with a poster like you who is out of touch with reality and afraid to engage in *honest* discourse.  Maybe Gdjjr sees how these exchanges end with that multi quote B.S. and I can almost guarantee he isn't reading the exchanges between you and I - nor is anyone else.  So, why engage in a waste of bandwidth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you post a long post, and I don't address a point, you will count is an a concession, will you not?
Click to expand...


Correll, I'm trying to understand you, not play games.  Now, if you don't understand the difference between long multi - quotes (requiring readers to go back and forth between posts and spend their time figuring out what is being said)  and paragraphs that blend together to explain a point, then you aren't smart enough to be in a real conversation.  After seeing some things you posted elsewhere, I have most of the answers I need to address your specific issue.


----------



## MaryL

Nobody is above the law. Accept poor poor Mexican illegals and those that exploit them and use PACs to manipulate the political  system to their benefit. Sanctuary cities weren't created by fiat, or popular referendums either. Is this a democracy or do the wealthy and their little PACs and rule the roost?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Nobody is above the law. Accept poor poor Mexican illegals and those that exploit them and use PACs to manipulate the political  system to their benefit. Sanctuary cities weren't created by fiat, or popular referendums either. Is this a democracy or do the wealthy and their little PACs and rule the roost?



You're another of those liars that makes me want to vomit.  *Sanctuary cities were created by the right wing* via the Printz decision in the United States Supreme Court.  

Sanctuary protects local and state governments from enforcing federal laws, especially when the locals and states believe that the federal laws are unconstitutional.    You know this MaryL.  You've been told more than ten times.  But, like a good little Democrat, you are here to see how many of these misinformed nutjobs will agree with you.  

If you had your way, you would do away with Sanctuary (though you'll need a constitutional amendment to get it done)  and when gun confiscations are ordered by the federal government, gun owners would be pursued by the police and military in violation of the separation of powers of our Constitution.  But, what the Hell.  It's just a G D piece of paper as George Bush said.  You need to read the Constitution.  You, Correll, and that other troll need remedial courses in basic civics.  The three of you are more of a danger to the cause of Liberty than the balance of liberal Democrats you prostitute for.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Porter Rockwell said:


> then you aren't smart enough to be in a real conversation.


Wrong of course, the truth is established with short Socratic questions and answers not long rants and references to other posts and websites. Any child can say, look at this rant website and post to see that I am right.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> then you aren't smart enough to be in a real conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong of course, the truth is established with short Socratic questions and answers not long rants and references to other posts and websites. Any child can say, look at this rant website and post to see that I am right.
Click to expand...


Anything over four words long is a "_rant_" to your dumb ass.  You're another in that line of dipwad, nonthinking dumbasses that we have to suffer in order to post here.  If we took the whole lot of you and turned your brains into dynamite, we couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.  You act as though you stalled out in the second grade.  Being nice to you didn't work and quite frankly, I'm sick of you.  If you can't handle ten paragraphs, you need to keep your dumb ass on Twitter.  You look like another Democrat, getting your popularity licks in when you think I'm down.  And now, ladies and gentlemen, Edith will want to rehash this same post over at least ten times before she gets the message.  The words and sentiment are not going to change.

Back in the days of Moses, the people reverted back to worshiping the Golden Calf while Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments.  Today, we have a generation wherein most were born just as they started taking God out of the public schools, getting rid of Nativity scenes and so forth.  And what are the masses doing today?  Worshiping the Golden Donald Trump.  History just keeps repeating itself.


----------



## 80zephyr

Porter Rockwell said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much would it take to change your attitude. Lets ask a hypothetical question. Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question- that will maybe change my attitude- I don't subscribe to ANY political Party. I despise group think in religion and politics as both demand compliance to a dogma- I am an INDIVIDUAL libertarian- I think for myself. I draw conclusions based on my beliefs and issue examination of how a whatever will effect Liberty- Period. My fundamental beliefs is that ALL men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights. Unalienable rights are inherent- they cannot be taken or granted-
> 
> NOW! What do you believe?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am i being asked this? Sure, we have rights. But, do others have a right to trample my own rights? Now, answer my question please.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Rights do you have that are being trampled on?
Click to expand...


The right of the people not to have their money stolen to fund others. The right to a decent wage devoid of hoards of illegal competition, for starters. 

Now, I have answered your question, answer mine:    Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?

Mark


----------



## Porter Rockwell

80zephyr said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much would it take to change your attitude. Lets ask a hypothetical question. Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question- that will maybe change my attitude- I don't subscribe to ANY political Party. I despise group think in religion and politics as both demand compliance to a dogma- I am an INDIVIDUAL libertarian- I think for myself. I draw conclusions based on my beliefs and issue examination of how a whatever will effect Liberty- Period. My fundamental beliefs is that ALL men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights. Unalienable rights are inherent- they cannot be taken or granted-
> 
> NOW! What do you believe?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am i being asked this? Sure, we have rights. But, do others have a right to trample my own rights? Now, answer my question please.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Rights do you have that are being trampled on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right of the people not to have their money stolen to fund others. The right to a decent wage devoid of hoards of illegal competition, for starters.
> 
> Now, I have answered your question, answer mine:    Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


It is already illegal to steal money to fund others, but I find it odd that you make the other argument.  The Anti- Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters advocate for that very thing.  As we keep talking about, one of the great hallmarks of our Republic is the Right to own private property.  Yet the Anti Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters think they have a Right to a job created in the private sector.  WTH, dude???  That is socialism. 

I have asked the APMs WHEN America was great.  They all pretty much agree that it was prior to the mid 1960s.  What happened then?  Busing, affirmative action, racial quotas, forcing employers to hire unqualified people because people have a Right to the job the private employer created.  Back then, it used to be an insult in White America to live off the government.  The older people would say that "_he thinks the world owes him a living_" when someone acts like these welfare riding whiners of today do. 

Now, let's say some Democrat did pledge to bring a billion - and let's make them *NONWHITE PEOPLE INTO THE UNITED STATES.* 

*NEWS FLASH!   *What in the Hell do you think do you think I've been complaining about for WEEKS now??????  That is EXACTLY what my dumb ass critics are advocating for.  They are too freaking stupid to read the immigration laws that were passed by the Democrats in the 1960s and too damn blind to see that the Democrats proposed solutions that were intended to implode on America.   The current immigration laws were intended to make the Whites a minority in the United States.   You preach at me like I'm the one with some stupid ass idea about allowing hordes of people flood the border, but if you were intelligent enough to have read this thread, I'm the only swinging soul out there pointing out that what you are accusing me of doing is EXACTLY what the Anti - Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters *are doing!*

There are about six or eight uneducated dolts that post here daily who deny history, the law and reality in their wall worship and thinking Trump is Jesus incarnate.  Yet, when you look at what they are promoting, *it does exactly what you accuse me of.*  The irony is, back in the 1990s through early 2000s we had this war won before these kind of brain dead sheeple jumped on the Nazi bandwagon with untenable proposals that have increased the size, power, and scope of government; taken away our Rights; they have given the country over to the third world and you bitch at me because they're idiots.  You need to wake the Hell up, put on your big boy pants and figure it out.  *YOU GOT PLAYED.*  And if you take the time to READ this thread, you can find the facts.  The fact is, the APMs - Anti Liberty / *POLICE STATE* / MAGA supporters  have accomplished for the Democrats what the Dems couldn't do for themselves and IF YOU READ THE THREADS, the APMs openly admit that the window is rapidly closing... a window the APMs built.  Could they be any more screwed up!


----------



## Denizen

The majority of Americans are descended from immigrants who arrived without prior approval.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Denizen said:


> The majority of Americans are descended from immigrants who arrived without prior approval.



*Unalienable* Rights supersede man made laws.  Citizenship is a privilege granted by government.  *Liberty* means that we, the people, by our own acts decide who comes and goes while the Constitution lays out who has the authority to lay out the uniform Rule of Naturalization.  At no time does the Constitution give Congress any authority to do any more than lay out that Rule of Naturalization.  The rest is under the control of we, the people.  

If you elect politicians that give freebies to non-citizens and allow non-citizens to share in the benefits, immunities, and privileges of citizenship, it is on the voters, not anyone else.


----------



## Denizen

Mexicans were in what became the USA millennia before the ancestors of current US white racist bigots.

Mexicans Didn't Immigrate To America -- We've Always Been Here



> Mexicans Didn't Immigrate To America -- We've Always Been Here
> 
> Guest commentary curated by Forbes Opinion. Avik Roy, Opinion Editor.
> POST WRITTEN BY
> Pedro Garza
> 
> Pedro Garza served as a First Lieutenant during the Vietnam War and is now a retired federal government executive.
> This article is more than 3 years old.
> 
> I can trace my ancestry to La Grulla, a small community just west of McAllen, on the Texas side of the Rio Grande. My ancestors settled there in the 1830s -- a decade before Texas became a state. They pre-date the ancestors of most current Texans.
> 
> Of course, when my family settled in La Grulla, it was part of Mexico. They became residents of the United States after the U.S. government was given their land -- or stole it, depending on your point of view -- in 1848.
> 
> My family settled in what is now the United States decades before President Trump's ancestors arrived. In other words, we "Mexicans" did not immigrate to the United States. We lived on U.S. land before it was U.S. land. And we're not going away.
> 
> The chanting of "Build that Wall" at Trump campaign rallies and in our schools was disappointing. Even more insulting was Trump's accusation that Mexican immigrants are "criminals and rapists."
> 
> But these are only the latest salvos in the U.S. government's centuries-long track record of anti-Mexican sentiment.
> 
> A little history. In the early 1800s, with a passion for expansionism fueled by Manifest Destiny, the United States craved a passage to the Pacific Ocean -- and by extension, the shipping routes to Asia.
> 
> But Mexico inconveniently stood in the way. So the United States invaded. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the two-year Mexican-American War in 1848 and ceded present-day Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming to the United States.
> 
> The United States realized its "destiny" and secured its pathway to the Pacific. But it also inherited the hundreds of thousands of Native Americans and millions of Mexicans who had long lived on that land.
> 
> It was an immigration problem of the U.S. government's own making.
> 
> The U.S. Army responded to Native Americans with involuntary removals and reservations. From 1864 to 1866, nearly 10,000 Navajo and Apache people were forced to walk 450 miles to a camp in eastern New Mexico. The reservation didn't have adequate shelter or food. Over 2,300 Navajo and Apache died before the Army allowed survivors to move back home.
> 
> Dealing with the much larger group of Mexicans -- many of them landowners, office-holders, entrepreneurs, lawyers, bankers and members of the clergy -- was more complex. The government couldn't consign them to reservations.
> 
> Their customs, language, traditions, values, culture, food and communities all became part of who we are as a nation -- whether the U.S. government liked it or not.
> 
> But the U.S. government still did its best to make its newest citizens foreigners in their own land and unwelcome in their own country. Congress passed the Homestead Act in 1862, allowing Americans to apply for Western land in exchange for farming on it -- taking land that belonged to Mexicans.
> 
> Later, during the Great Depression, the United States deported almost 2 million Mexicans. More than half of them were U.S. citizens.
> 
> Despite this history of bigotry, discrimination and exclusion, we're still here, contributing to American society and the economy. Latinos have $1.5 trillion in purchasing power. Latino-owned businesses were responsible for 86% of small business growth from 2007 to 2012. That means we created a whole lot of jobs, for Latinos and non-Latinos alike.
> 
> And there is no wall high enough or long enough to exclude us from this country's future. By 2060, one in four Americans is projected to be Hispanic. We're not confined to our ancestral home in the Great Southwest. The fastest-growing Latino communities are in North Dakota, Alabama, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, South Dakota and Utah.
> 
> President Trump is seeking to close the stable door a century and a half after the horse has bolted. Mexicans are here -- in our homeland -- to stay. Nearly 33 million Latinos were born in this country.  We were here before many of our fellow citizens arrived. And a fence, a wall, a moat, or a river will serve only to keep us in, not out.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Denizen said:


> The majority of Americans are descended from immigrants who arrived without prior approval.


None of them were immigrants.  They were settlers in an undefined land mass.  Now if you want to say that today's  invaders are settlers seeking to take this land and fashion their own country I have to agree with you.  That is exactly what they think and why they should be stopped by all means possible.


----------



## Gdjjr

80zephyr said:


> Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?


While you're trying to absorb what's been written, add this to the list-

You want to speculate- let's say you believed this Truth, this Life philosophy, with all your heart and soul
*
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 th epursuit of Happines*s.--*That to secure these rights,* *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, *--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, 


Would you try to live it? Or, would you prefer godvernment tell you how, when and where you have "certain unalienable rights"?


----------



## Correll

Denizen said:


> Mexicans were in what became the USA millennia before the ancestors of current US white racist bigots.
> 
> Mexicans Didn't Immigrate To America -- We've Always Been Here
> 
> ...




So, to you this is a war of reconquest?


----------



## Gdjjr

Tipsycatlover said:


> None of them were immigrants.


Europeans came here without prior approval. They migrated. That makes them what?


----------



## Correll

Denizen said:


> The majority of Americans are descended from immigrants who arrived without prior approval.




So, your point is that we have no right to this land and it is the right of Mexicans and the like to take it from us?


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> So, to you this is a war of reconquest?


What if it is? That aside, what difference would it make? Oh, you could legally refer to immigrants as invaders.
Got it.


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> So, your point is that we have no right to this land and it is the right of Mexicans and the like to take it from us?


Straw man hyperbole- ALL men have certain unalienable rights- there are no ethnic caveats.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you this is a war of reconquest?
> 
> 
> 
> What if it is? That aside, what difference would it make? Oh, you could legally refer to immigrants as invaders.
> Got it.
Click to expand...



You cut his point, that prompted my question. And then act like my question is not valid.

NOt cool.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that we have no right to this land and it is the right of Mexicans and the like to take it from us?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man hyperbole- ALL men have certain unalienable rights- there are no ethnic caveats.
Click to expand...



Don't tell me, tell him. 


Are you denying the existence of nations?


----------



## 80zephyr

Gdjjr said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?
> 
> 
> 
> While you're trying to absorb what's been written, add this to the list-
> 
> You want to speculate- let's say you believed this Truth, this Life philosophy, with all your heart and soul
> 
> *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 th epursuit of Happines*s.--*That to secure these rights,* *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, *--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
> 
> 
> Would you try to live it? Or, would you prefer godvernment tell you how, when and where you have "certain unalienable rights"?
Click to expand...


You did not answer my question. Are you afraid to?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that we have no right to this land and it is the right of Mexicans and the like to take it from us?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man hyperbole- ALL men have certain unalienable rights- there are no ethnic caveats.
Click to expand...


If an unalienable right means anything, it also means that the people that are being invaded are also being denied their rights.

Mark


----------



## Crixus

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Please take back your Mexicans
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 319984
> 
> View attachment 319988




Was that posted on regular Facebook or Mexican Facebook ?


I included a picture Incase you don't know what that is.


----------



## Gdjjr

80zephyr said:


> You did not answer my question. Are you afraid to?


I've been asking mine this entire thread. What makes your's special?


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


> Are you denying the existence of nations?


Are you denying unalienable rights- can you show me a caveat to national?


----------



## Gdjjr

80zephyr said:


> If an unalienable right means anything, it also means that the people that are being invaded are also being denied their rights.


Nope- you still have the right to pursue your life as you see fit- well until godvernmemnt says otherwise and being the omnipotent pretenders it is- it's coming, sooner rather than later. Look up the thread about the guy arrested in Ohio for evidence-


----------



## Gdjjr

80zephyr said:


> invaded


Invade: The first definition

(of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it. 

Are you talking about the US invasions over the years?


----------



## 80zephyr

Gdjjr said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not answer my question. Are you afraid to?
> 
> 
> 
> I've been asking mine this entire thread. What makes your's special?
Click to expand...


I answered your question. Now answer mine.

Mark


----------



## Denizen

Correll said:


> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of Americans are descended from immigrants who arrived without prior approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that we have no right to this land and it is the right of Mexicans and the like to take it from us?
Click to expand...


Whites are becoming a minority and may one day be grateful for the Mexican infusion which is improving the gene pool and preventing human population decline.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Sweet jesus 

Oy snapper heads 

Mexicans joined Texans in breaking away from Mexico ...
Some Texans have a soft spot for all Mexicans...well to fuckin bad jebs,,,,,

It's just t o friggin bad that mexicans  along with central and south Americans were born on the other side of the border  ....

After we had our feet up on the desk In  mexico city after the mexican american war We gave the country back because...for one! because the powers that be at that time did not want to assimilate the fuckers ..and for good reason 

We the people Reconquista my arse Bleeding heart globo homos

Eject all illegals....well except maybe like white ones from canada and western europe 

Lol western europe and Canada get more frightening by the hour

Try and stay on topic 
As in the drain they are here in the united states  and at home in messi co 

Are these people a libertaian ronald reagan net gain anywhere? ...I'm starting really to think maybe err not really ...

Mexicans are one of the largest immigrant groups in the USA they can take a few back ...especially the ones who walked over and started collecting food stamps


----------



## Denizen

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Sweet jesus
> 
> Oy snapper heads
> 
> Mexicans joined Texans in breaking away from Mexico ...
> Some Texans have a soft spot for all Mexicans...well to fuckin bad jebs,,,,,
> 
> It's just t o friggin bad that mexicans  along with central and south Americans were born on the other side of the border  ....
> 
> After we had our feet up on the desk In  mexico city after the mexican american war We gave the country back because...for one! because the powers that be at that time did not want to assimilate the fuckers ..and for good reason
> 
> We the people Reconquista my arse Bleeding heart globo homos
> 
> Eject all illegals....well except maybe like white ones from canada and western europe
> 
> Lol western europe and Canada get more frightening by the hour
> 
> Try and stay on topic
> As in the drain they are here in the united states  and at home in messi co
> 
> Are these people a libertaian ronald reagan net gain anywhere? ...I'm starting really to think maybe err not really ...
> 
> Mexicans are one of the largest immigrant groups in the USA they can take a few back ...especially the ones who walked over and started collecting food stamps



Evidently you don't like competitors for food stamps unless they're the privileged, white, racist, bigoted, kind.


----------



## Correll

Denizen said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of Americans are descended from immigrants who arrived without prior approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that we have no right to this land and it is the right of Mexicans and the like to take it from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites are becoming a minority and may one day be grateful for the Mexican infusion which is improving the gene pool and preventing human population decline.
Click to expand...


You made a statement and when I ask you about a question about it, you just spout unrelated shit.


I think you are ashamed to admit that my question was right on.


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


----------



## Gdjjr

80zephyr said:


> I answered your question. Now answer mine.


No, you haven't.


----------



## Gdjjr

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Try and stay on topic


Intellectual honesty is the topic-


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


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


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


----------



## Denizen

Correll said:


> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of Americans are descended from immigrants who arrived without prior approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that we have no right to this land and it is the right of Mexicans and the like to take it from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites are becoming a minority and may one day be grateful for the Mexican infusion which is improving the gene pool and preventing human population decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a statement and when I ask you about a question about it, you just spout unrelated shit.
> 
> 
> I think you are ashamed to admit that my question was right on.
> 
> 
> You do think this land belongs to the Mexicans or the brown people of Sun, or some such bullshit and you on their side AGAINST your fellow Americans.
Click to expand...


Mexicans have more connection with the land that is now America than the descendants of European settlers do.

Privileged, white, racist, bigots like Donald Trump and his ilk hate people who have a historical connection to the land.

Keep it under your hat.


----------



## Correll

Gdjjr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do think this land belongs to the Mexicans or the brown people of Sun, or some such bullshit and you on their side AGAINST your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see where there is a caveat about skin pigment in the declaration, nor in the constitution, which are the rules
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Correll

Denizen said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of Americans are descended from immigrants who arrived without prior approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that we have no right to this land and it is the right of Mexicans and the like to take it from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites are becoming a minority and may one day be grateful for the Mexican infusion which is improving the gene pool and preventing human population decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a statement and when I ask you about a question about it, you just spout unrelated shit.
> 
> 
> I think you are ashamed to admit that my question was right on.
> 
> 
> You do think this land belongs to the Mexicans or the brown people of Sun, or some such bullshit and you on their side AGAINST your fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexicans have more connection with the land that is now America than the descendants of European settlers do.
> 
> Privileged, white, racist, bigots like Donald Trump and his ilk hate people who have a historical connection to the land.
> 
> Keep it under your hat.
Click to expand...



"More of a connection to that land", than your fellow Americans. And that is American land we are talking about.


SO, that is a yes, you are siding with outsiders who are coming here to take back the land, away from US.


Thank you for your honesty.


----------



## Gdjjr

Correll said:


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


So, you don't believe in unalienable rights.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Gdjjr said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try and stay on topic
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectual honesty is the topic-
Click to expand...


Which you seem to lack since you and your buddy keep trying to change the subject


----------



## 80zephyr

Gdjjr said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question. Now answer mine.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.
Click to expand...


Post no. 163

Mark


----------



## Porter Rockwell

80zephyr said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that we have no right to this land and it is the right of Mexicans and the like to take it from us?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man hyperbole- ALL men have certain unalienable rights- there are no ethnic caveats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an unalienable right means anything, it also means that the people that are being invaded are also being denied their rights.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Mark,

The Anti Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA  *(APMs)* supporters have not articulated a Right they were denied because a foreigner came into the United States.  Did someone deny you a Right you had by taking advantage of an opportunity willingly offered?

*IF* undocumented foreigners are getting any of your tax money, it is because the government *YOU* voted for gave it to them OR they are stealing it... in which case the APMs already got the Orwellian National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap passed and that was supposed to catch those people - at a great loss to your Liberties as well as mine.  Remember what Benjamin Franklin said that those who trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserve neither?  It's because once you forfeit your Liberty you forfeit Safety as well. 

Be specific and tell me what Rights you've been denied on account of non-citizens participating in the free market.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Denizen said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet jesus
> 
> Oy snapper heads
> 
> Mexicans joined Texans in breaking away from Mexico ...
> Some Texans have a soft spot for all Mexicans...well to fuckin bad jebs,,,,,
> 
> It's just t o friggin bad that mexicans  along with central and south Americans were born on the other side of the border  ....
> 
> After we had our feet up on the desk In  mexico city after the mexican american war We gave the country back because...for one! because the powers that be at that time did not want to assimilate the fuckers ..and for good reason
> 
> We the people Reconquista my arse Bleeding heart globo homos
> 
> Eject all illegals....well except maybe like white ones from canada and western europe
> 
> Lol western europe and Canada get more frightening by the hour
> 
> Try and stay on topic
> As in the drain they are here in the united states  and at home in messi co
> 
> Are these people a libertaian ronald reagan net gain anywhere? ...I'm starting really to think maybe err not really ...
> 
> Mexicans are one of the largest immigrant groups in the USA they can take a few back ...especially the ones who walked over and started collecting food stamps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently you don't like competitors for food stamps unless they're the privileged, white, racist, bigoted, kind.
Click to expand...


Undocumented foreigners do not and have never qualified to get food stamps:









						Facts About Immigrants & the Food Stamp Program
					






					www.nilc.org


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do think this land belongs to the Mexicans or the brown people of Sun, or some such bullshit and you on their side AGAINST your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see where there is a caveat about skin pigment in the declaration, nor in the constitution, which are the rules
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. "Mexicans" are a nation to the South of US, with an historical claim to some of our land. "People of the Sun" is a racial term used by some anti-white racists, in this case referring to such people from outside of our nation, that the lefty believes has some right to our territory.
Click to expand...


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

The Whites defeated all comers and took America by Right of Conquest.  The founders / framers had their take on it as well:









						Manifest destiny - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




I subscribe to the third theme in that list as Wikipedia articulates it:

'_The third theme can be viewed as a natural outgrowth of the belief that God had a direct influence in the foundation and further actions of the United States. Clinton Rossiter, a scholar, described this view as summing "that God, at the proper stage in the march of history, called forth certain hardy souls from the old and privilege-ridden nations ... and that in bestowing his grace He also bestowed a peculiar responsibility". Americans presupposed that they were not only divinely elected to maintain the North American continent, but also to "spread abroad the fundamental principles stated in the Bill of Rights".[34] In many cases this meant neighboring colonial holdings and countries were seen as obstacles rather than the destiny God had provided the United States_."


----------



## Gdjjr

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Which you seem to lack since you and your buddy keep trying to change the subject


No, actually you and your groupies changed the subject to illegal aliens- I had nothing to do with that.
Can I suggest you go back and read the first post in this thread? Then read the rest of the posts, in order, come baqck to this post and try to be intellectually honest.


----------



## Gdjjr

80zephyr said:


> Post no. 163


link? You made a claim- prove it.


----------



## Gdjjr

80zephyr said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question. Now answer mine.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post no. 163
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Post 163

1. Most of that seemed to be supporting your example as a valid example of a problem. Which I did not challenge sooo.


2. If your solution is to bring in cheap foreign labor to do the work, then I will oppose you, no matter whether or not you deny personal responsibility for the results of your policy.

3. You suggest fixing our culture. Sounds good. I don't how or why allowing immigrants to flood our country while doing that, would be a good policy. 

Nowhere do I see my question answered. So, when are you going to answer it?
Do you or do you not believe in UNalienable rights. Simple yes or no will do.


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter Rockwell said:


> _The third theme can be viewed as a natural outgrowth of the belief that God had a direct influence in the foundation and further actions of the United States. Clinton Rossiter, a scholar, described this view as summing "that God, at the proper stage in the march of history, called forth certain hardy souls from the old and privilege-ridden nations ... and that in bestowing his grace He also bestowed a peculiar responsibility". Americans presupposed that they were not only divinely elected to maintain the North American continent, but also to "spread abroad the fundamental principles stated in the Bill of Rights".[34] In many cases this meant neighboring colonial holdings and countries were seen as obstacles rather than the destiny God had provided the United States_."


Porter, you're a good man- and I don't say that to many. You've made some really good "legal" arguments and I'd pay for your legal services in a heart beat- I hope I never need them, but I've told my sons to come here and contact you should the requirement arise.

But, Manifest Destiny, was a bumper sticker slogan before there were cars, never mind bumpers, similar to "the axis of evil", "the war on terror", "the war on drugs", "the war on poverty" to justify (which is often as not merely an excuse), invading, lying about why, robbing and plundering inhabitants and the habit has not subsided.

Justifying (excusing) immoral actions because it has a gods stamp of approval doesn't make it moral. It should be insulting to God fearing people- fearing being the key- for perpetrating immoral actions in His name- it doesn't seem to, which leads me back to the intent of this thread: Intellectual Honesty.


----------



## 80zephyr

Porter Rockwell said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that we have no right to this land and it is the right of Mexicans and the like to take it from us?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man hyperbole- ALL men have certain unalienable rights- there are no ethnic caveats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an unalienable right means anything, it also means that the people that are being invaded are also being denied their rights.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mark,
> 
> The Anti Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA  *(APMs)* supporters have not articulated a Right they were denied because a foreigner came into the United States.  Did someone deny you a Right you had by taking advantage of an opportunity willingly offered?
> 
> *IF* undocumented foreigners are getting any of your tax money, it is because the government *YOU* voted for gave it to them OR they are stealing it... in which case the APMs already got the Orwellian National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap passed and that was supposed to catch those people - at a great loss to your Liberties as well as mine.  Remember what Benjamin Franklin said that those who trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserve neither?  It's because once you forfeit your Liberty you forfeit Safety as well.
> 
> Be specific and tell me what Rights you've been denied on account of non-citizens participating in the free market.
Click to expand...


Let me simply say this. Open borders are incompatible with a welfare state.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Gdjjr said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post no. 163
> 
> 
> 
> link? You made a claim- prove it.
Click to expand...


Prove what? That every anchor baby cost me, as a taxpayer, money? 

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Gdjjr said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question. Now answer mine.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post no. 163
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post 163
> 
> 1. Most of that seemed to be supporting your example as a valid example of a problem. Which I did not challenge sooo.
> 
> 
> 2. If your solution is to bring in cheap foreign labor to do the work, then I will oppose you, no matter whether or not you deny personal responsibility for the results of your policy.
> 
> 3. You suggest fixing our culture. Sounds good. I don't how or why allowing immigrants to flood our country while doing that, would be a good policy.
> 
> Nowhere do I see my question answered. So, when are you going to answer it?
> Do you or do you not believe in UNalienable rights. Simple yes or no will do.
Click to expand...


Do you still beat your wife? A simple yes or no will do.  Yes, I believe in unalienable rights. I also believe that the rights of others does not give them a right to invade your home.  If a person brought his family into your home, does he have a right to stay there without your permission?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Mark


----------



## Gdjjr

80zephyr said:


> Prove what? That every anchor baby cost me, as a taxpayer, money?


Stop being intentionally obtuse- answer my question or continue a faked innocence- it's your choice, which, BTW, is a Right!


----------



## Gdjjr

80zephyr said:


> Do you still beat your wife?


I'm not married. I'll take your deflection as being afraid of the Truth- thanks!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

80zephyr said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that we have no right to this land and it is the right of Mexicans and the like to take it from us?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man hyperbole- ALL men have certain unalienable rights- there are no ethnic caveats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an unalienable right means anything, it also means that the people that are being invaded are also being denied their rights.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mark,
> 
> The Anti Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA  *(APMs)* supporters have not articulated a Right they were denied because a foreigner came into the United States.  Did someone deny you a Right you had by taking advantage of an opportunity willingly offered?
> 
> *IF* undocumented foreigners are getting any of your tax money, it is because the government *YOU* voted for gave it to them OR they are stealing it... in which case the APMs already got the Orwellian National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap passed and that was supposed to catch those people - at a great loss to your Liberties as well as mine.  Remember what Benjamin Franklin said that those who trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserve neither?  It's because once you forfeit your Liberty you forfeit Safety as well.
> 
> Be specific and tell me what Rights you've been denied on account of non-citizens participating in the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me simply say this. Open borders are incompatible with a welfare state.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Now you're quoting Milton Friedman.  Milton Friedman did not believe in a welfare state.  Neither should we. 


80zephyr said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question. Now answer mine.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post no. 163
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post 163
> 
> 1. Most of that seemed to be supporting your example as a valid example of a problem. Which I did not challenge sooo.
> 
> 
> 2. If your solution is to bring in cheap foreign labor to do the work, then I will oppose you, no matter whether or not you deny personal responsibility for the results of your policy.
> 
> 3. You suggest fixing our culture. Sounds good. I don't how or why allowing immigrants to flood our country while doing that, would be a good policy.
> 
> Nowhere do I see my question answered. So, when are you going to answer it?
> Do you or do you not believe in UNalienable rights. Simple yes or no will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you still beat your wife? A simple yes or no will do.  Yes, I believe in unalienable rights. I also believe that the rights of others does not give them a right to invade your home.  If a person brought his family into your home, does he have a right to stay there without your permission?
> 
> A simple yes or no will suffice.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



Mark, when Americans and foreigners do business willingly, the Americans have consented to that relationship.  So, they have permission - though not necessary since *unalienable *Rights preceded the founding of government and are above the laws of man.

But, do tell, what Rights have been taken from you by way of foreigners engaging in the free market.


----------



## Juicin

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Please take back your Mexicans
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 319984
> 
> View attachment 319988



duped SS numbers

mexican illegal immigrant

pick one

The OP basically said they left that shit hole now they're back in teh shit hole. All this does is make mexicans look bad

Have fun with your cartels funded by our drugs you peasant....


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do think this land belongs to the Mexicans or the brown people of Sun, or some such bullshit and you on their side AGAINST your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see where there is a caveat about skin pigment in the declaration, nor in the constitution, which are the rules
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. "Mexicans" are a nation to the South of US, with an historical claim to some of our land. "People of the Sun" is a racial term used by some anti-white racists, in this case referring to such people from outside of our nation, that the lefty believes has some right to our territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between exercising Liberty and taking over your territory.  Citizenship to the third world is what leads to a takeover of your territory.  There is no invasion when the relationship is consensual between willing Americans and willing foreigners.   You're conflating the two which is why you stay mired in arguments.
> 
> .....
Click to expand...



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


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


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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do think this land belongs to the Mexicans or the brown people of Sun, or some such bullshit and you on their side AGAINST your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see where there is a caveat about skin pigment in the declaration, nor in the constitution, which are the rules
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. "Mexicans" are a nation to the South of US, with an historical claim to some of our land. "People of the Sun" is a racial term used by some anti-white racists, in this case referring to such people from outside of our nation, that the lefty believes has some right to our territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between exercising Liberty and taking over your territory.  Citizenship to the third world is what leads to a takeover of your territory.  There is no invasion when the relationship is consensual between willing Americans and willing foreigners.   You're conflating the two which is why you stay mired in arguments.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My answer to that is, A. no there isn't, and one leads to the other.
> 
> 
> First of all, by changing my nation, without my informed consent (as part of the assembled group, Americans,) the immigrants, (illegal and legal) are violating my right to self determination.
> 
> 
> and second of all, as they increasingly take over the reins of government, it will NOT be about consensual relations between wiling Americans and willing foreigners, but foreigners imposing their culture and politics on US against our will.
Click to expand...


What you said has nothing to do with what you quoted.  I read that "_No, it isn't_," trying to fit that into anything I stated.  Correll, in all honesty, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in recorded history with the ability to do in under 300 years what the Roman Empire could not do in 1000 years.  AND, they did it with open borders and foreigners taking advantage of the free market.  The founders / framers did all of that without the restrictions and the danger of putting our Rights into jeopardy at a time when only free Whites could become citizens.  So, history refutes your position.

The way back to self determination is the nullify the 14th Amendment, exercise your Rights and the rest will fall back into place in a very short amount of time.  It is a fact that amalgamation is going to destroy this Republic (as if it hasn't already.)  So, you take your country back incrementally by reclaiming Liberties *OR* you have a war.  You do not pass more laws, take more Liberties off the table, and think that is beneficial to you.  That is bass ackwards thinking - if it's thinking at all.  IF you want an internal un-civil war, you'd better get cracking.  Those willing to fight back dwindle by the day.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Gdjjr said:


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


That's actually INalienable rights, Thomas Jefferson.

Are you claiming there is some right for illegals to clean hotel rooms or run lawn mowers in this nation?
I know of no such right. I saw my county go to hell in the span of a couple of decades because
illegals from Mexico over ran it, like cockroaches in a cheap restaurant. 

I know lots of great people who came here illegally. But they have no right to be here and there
numbers are usually wiped out by the assholes and law breakers among their group.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually INalienable rights, Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Are you claiming there is some right for illegals to clean hotel rooms or run lawn mowers in this nation?
> I know of no such right. I saw my county go to hell in the span of a couple of decades because
> illegals from Mexico over ran it, like cockroaches in a cheap restaurant.
> 
> I know lots of great people who came here illegally. But they have no right to be here and there
> numbers are usually wiped out by the assholes and law breakers among their group.
Click to expand...


The official word in the United States Code (the official laws of the United States of America) is *unalienable*.  The courts have applied different meanings to the two words, but then "Eric Blair" aka George Orwell you know that Winston Smith loved Big Brother - as you do.  So you can enjoy your _inalienable_ rights and worship the government god that granted those privileges to you.

On foreigners, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually INalienable rights, Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Are you claiming there is some right for illegals to clean hotel rooms or run lawn mowers in this nation?
> I know of no such right. I saw my county go to hell in the span of a couple of decades because
> illegals from Mexico over ran it, like cockroaches in a cheap restaurant.
> 
> I know lots of great people who came here illegally. But they have no right to be here and there
> numbers are usually wiped out by the assholes and law breakers among their group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The official word in the United States Code (the official laws of the United States of America) is *unalienable*.  The courts have applied different meanings to the two words, but then "Eric Blair" aka George Orwell you know that Winston Smith loved Big Brother - as you do.  So you can enjoy your _inalienable_ rights and worship the government god that granted those privileges to you.
> 
> On foreigners, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Click to expand...



Oh my god a couple days ago you were on another thread proclaiming how we all need government approved doctors notes to go outside ,or back to work lol

Show your papers to the nice police man fargin dunce
the greasy illegal rat **** standing behind you has a forged one

Pay an american to do your drywall ya cheap leftwing joo rat and fuck off with your hypocritical insane babbling


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> The official word in the United States Code (the official laws of the United States of America) is *unalienable*. The courts have applied different meanings to the two words, but then "Eric Blair" aka George Orwell you know that Winston Smith loved Big Brother - as you do. So you can enjoy your _inalienable_ rights and worship the government god that granted those privileges to you.


Inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing
As you seem not to know Winston Smith hated Big Brother and only pledged allegiance to Big Brother to end
his brutal and long torture when the Thought Police captured him and a woman who shared his views.

The commentary about me is bizarre.




> On foreigners, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.


In what way? Have we ceded the right to control who enters our borders? Please cite the SC decision
that formalizes this.

Let me guess that you are one of these super libertarian anarchists a-holes who think you should be able to get a Mexican to be your slave for $8.50 per day if you can talk one into it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> The Anti Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA *(APMs)* supporters have not articulated a Right they were denied because a foreigner came into the United States. Did someone deny you a Right you had by taking advantage of an opportunity willingly offered?
> 
> *IF* undocumented foreigners are getting any of your tax money, it is because the government *YOU* voted for gave it to them OR they are stealing it... in which case the APMs already got the Orwellian National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap passed and that was supposed to catch those people - at a great loss to your Liberties as well as mine. Remember what Benjamin Franklin said that those who trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserve neither? It's because once you forfeit your Liberty you forfeit Safety as well.
> 
> Be specific and tell me what Rights you've been denied on account of non-citizens participating in the free market.


Oh, okay....just as I thought. A super libertarian or an open borders dick sucker pretending to be one
It makes no difference. The scam is the same.

Entering the nation illegally is against the law so no one needs to show you what rights Americans have been denied although there are all sorts of them (the right to not be deprived of employment and benefits of said
employment because a vast horde of low wage, uneducated and low skilled workers from Mexico, and Central American nations,  have illegally entered the nation and, like an invasive plant species,
and are killing off the native workers, for one).

The right to not have my tax money go to said illegals in a variety of ways, facilitated by politicians, Chamber of Commerce types, and bureaucrats all working under tropes of various kinds that make the citizen
evil and a bad guy if he dares speak up against the massive injustice of a slow motion coup rationalized by
pricks like you, for another.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually INalienable rights, Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Are you claiming there is some right for illegals to clean hotel rooms or run lawn mowers in this nation?
> I know of no such right. I saw my county go to hell in the span of a couple of decades because
> illegals from Mexico over ran it, like cockroaches in a cheap restaurant.
> 
> I know lots of great people who came here illegally. But they have no right to be here and there
> numbers are usually wiped out by the assholes and law breakers among their group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The official word in the United States Code (the official laws of the United States of America) is *unalienable*.  The courts have applied different meanings to the two words, but then "Eric Blair" aka George Orwell you know that Winston Smith loved Big Brother - as you do.  So you can enjoy your _inalienable_ rights and worship the government god that granted those privileges to you.
> 
> On foreigners, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god a couple days ago you were on another thread proclaiming how we all need government approved doctors notes to go outside ,or back to work lol
> 
> Show your papers to the nice police man fargin dunce
> the greasy illegal rat **** standing behind you has a forged one
> 
> Pay an american to do your drywall ya cheap leftwing joo rat and fuck off with your hypocritical insane babbling
Click to expand...


You are a liar.  And your lying ass has a driver's license, tag on your car, has done at least one drug test to get a job and vote for a government god.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The official word in the United States Code (the official laws of the United States of America) is *unalienable*. The courts have applied different meanings to the two words, but then "Eric Blair" aka George Orwell you know that Winston Smith loved Big Brother - as you do. So you can enjoy your _inalienable_ rights and worship the government god that granted those privileges to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing
> As you seem not to know Winston Smith hated Big Brother and only pledged allegiance to Big Brother to end
> his brutal and long torture when the Thought Police captured him and a woman who shared his views.
> 
> The commentary about me is bizarre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On foreigners, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In what way? Have we ceded the right to control who enters our borders? Please cite the SC decision
> that formalizes this.
> 
> Let me guess that you are one of these super libertarian anarchists a-holes who think you should be able to get a Mexican to be your slave for $8.50 per day if you can talk one into it.
Click to expand...


Your post is non-specific... in what way, what???  What does that mean?

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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Anti Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA *(APMs)* supporters have not articulated a Right they were denied because a foreigner came into the United States. Did someone deny you a Right you had by taking advantage of an opportunity willingly offered?
> 
> *IF* undocumented foreigners are getting any of your tax money, it is because the government *YOU* voted for gave it to them OR they are stealing it... in which case the APMs already got the Orwellian National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap passed and that was supposed to catch those people - at a great loss to your Liberties as well as mine. Remember what Benjamin Franklin said that those who trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserve neither? It's because once you forfeit your Liberty you forfeit Safety as well.
> 
> Be specific and tell me what Rights you've been denied on account of non-citizens participating in the free market.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, okay....just as I thought. A super libertarian or an open borders dick sucker pretending to be one
> It makes no difference. The scam is the same.
> 
> Entering the nation illegally is against the law so no one needs to show you what rights Americans have been denied although there are all sorts of them (the right to not be deprived of employment and benefits of said
> employment because a vast horde of low wage, uneducated and low skilled workers from Mexico, and Central American nations,  have illegally entered the nation and, like an invasive plant species,
> and are killing off the native workers, for one).
> 
> The right to not have my tax money go to said illegals in a variety of ways, facilitated by politicians, Chamber of Commerce types, and bureaucrats all working under tropes of various kinds that make the citizen
> evil and a bad guy if he dares speak up against the massive injustice of a slow motion coup rationalized by
> pricks like you, for another.
Click to expand...


What Rights are you denied if a foreigner is working a job in the United States?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The official word in the United States Code (the official laws of the United States of America) is *unalienable*. The courts have applied different meanings to the two words, but then "Eric Blair" aka George Orwell you know that Winston Smith loved Big Brother - as you do. So you can enjoy your _inalienable_ rights and worship the government god that granted those privileges to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing
> As you seem not to know Winston Smith hated Big Brother and only pledged allegiance to Big Brother to end
> his brutal and long torture when the Thought Police captured him and a woman who shared his views.
> 
> The commentary about me is bizarre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On foreigners, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In what way? Have we ceded the right to control who enters our borders? Please cite the SC decision
> that formalizes this.
> 
> Let me guess that you are one of these super libertarian anarchists a-holes who think you should be able to get a Mexican to be your slave for $8.50 per day if you can talk one into it.
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually INalienable rights, Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Are you claiming there is some right for illegals to clean hotel rooms or run lawn mowers in this nation?
> I know of no such right. I saw my county go to hell in the span of a couple of decades because
> illegals from Mexico over ran it, like cockroaches in a cheap restaurant.
> 
> I know lots of great people who came here illegally. But they have no right to be here and there
> numbers are usually wiped out by the assholes and law breakers among their group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The official word in the United States Code (the official laws of the United States of America) is *unalienable*.  The courts have applied different meanings to the two words, but then "Eric Blair" aka George Orwell you know that Winston Smith loved Big Brother - as you do.  So you can enjoy your _inalienable_ rights and worship the government god that granted those privileges to you.
> 
> On foreigners, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god a couple days ago you were on another thread proclaiming how we all need government approved doctors notes to go outside ,or back to work lol
> 
> Show your papers to the nice police man fargin dunce
> the greasy illegal rat **** standing behind you has a forged one
> 
> Pay an american to do your drywall ya cheap leftwing joo rat and fuck off with your hypocritical insane babbling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a liar.  And your lying ass has a driver's license, tag on your car, has done at least one drug test to get a job and vote for a government god.
Click to expand...


Wheres your doctors note? ... mr ya either believe and live it or ya dont commie dunce lol

Maybe a greasy illegal net gain leech can get ya a forged one .....on all of em 
Doctors note to drivers liscense ...they do specialize in forging documents 

You'll cheap out ya  cheap statist commie joo bag..... pay for shoddy ones and wind up a victim of the police state 

How ironic


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually INalienable rights, Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Are you claiming there is some right for illegals to clean hotel rooms or run lawn mowers in this nation?
> I know of no such right. I saw my county go to hell in the span of a couple of decades because
> illegals from Mexico over ran it, like cockroaches in a cheap restaurant.
> 
> I know lots of great people who came here illegally. But they have no right to be here and there
> numbers are usually wiped out by the assholes and law breakers among their group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The official word in the United States Code (the official laws of the United States of America) is *unalienable*.  The courts have applied different meanings to the two words, but then "Eric Blair" aka George Orwell you know that Winston Smith loved Big Brother - as you do.  So you can enjoy your _inalienable_ rights and worship the government god that granted those privileges to you.
> 
> On foreigners, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god a couple days ago you were on another thread proclaiming how we all need government approved doctors notes to go outside ,or back to work lol
> 
> Show your papers to the nice police man fargin dunce
> the greasy illegal rat **** standing behind you has a forged one
> 
> Pay an american to do your drywall ya cheap leftwing joo rat and fuck off with your hypocritical insane babbling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a liar.  And your lying ass has a driver's license, tag on your car, has done at least one drug test to get a job and vote for a government god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wheres your doctors note? ... mr ya either believe and live it or ya dont commie dunce lol
> 
> Maybe a greasy illegal net gain leech can get ya a forged one .....on all of em
> Doctors note to drivers liscense ...they do specialize in forging documents
> 
> You'll cheap out ya  cheap statist commie joo bag..... pay for shoddy ones and wind up a victim of the police state
> 
> How ironic
Click to expand...


The right wing, Tea Party conservatives wanted that bullshit.  Now you don't want it?  That's my fault?  Showing that you don't have an IQ any higher than your shoe size pisses you off.  Bear in mind.  I fought *against *those laws.  You signed onto it, so deal with it.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Lol wot? Derp 

Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag  cheap joo


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


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


It's illegal to enter the country illegally. Stop with your ten year old's word games.
How do you suppose it's so easy for ICE to arrest and deport so many illegal aliens?

Gee....you are so intelligent .......sorry.  I meant stupid.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


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


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

Fuck off with your idiocy!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> What Rights are you denied if a foreigner is working a job in the United States?


Why don't you read my post on that very subject?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Lol wot? Derp
> 
> Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag  cheap joo



www.angloisraelites.com


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Supreme Court ruled that it is not a crime for undocumented foreigners to be present in the United States. That is a fact, not a partisan statement. As for your guess, it's most likely wrong which would only prove you're not the beaming paragon of human virtue and knowledge that you pretend.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to enter the country illegally. Stop with your ten year old's word games.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol wot? Derp
> 
> Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag  cheap joo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.angloisraelites.com
Click to expand...

Uh boy

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


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


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


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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Unalienable* and _inalienable_ do* NOT *mean the same thing *in law*. Now, any dumb ass here can look at the Declaration of Independence and see that you were factually wrong there. It would be an exercise in futility to prove to you that,* IN LAW*, _inalienable _and *unalienable* do NOT mean the same thing. You've been proven wrong once and all you come back with is chickenshit name calling you would not say to my face. That shows you're a coward. You've been proven to be wrong; proven to be a coward; proven to not have any facts which is why you had to stoop to name calling. What are you? Like 11?
> 
> 
> 
> Unalienable / *Inalienable*
> "The two words mean precisely the same thing. ... The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been *inalienable*, which means the same thing. *Inalienable or* unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away *or* taken away."
> 
> Fuck off with your idiocy!
Click to expand...



Okay smart ass:

“_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}​
“_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol wot? Derp
> 
> Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag  cheap joo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.angloisraelites.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh boy
> 
> Do the crackajoos have green cards or do they believe in the right to come and go with forged doctors notes and drivers licenses?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol wot? Derp
> 
> Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag  cheap joo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.angloisraelites.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh boy
> 
> Do the crackajoos have green cards or do they believe in the right to come and go with forged doctors notes and drivers licenses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one of those dick lickers that wanted all that National ID bullshit.  I lobbied against it.  Now that we have a use for it, you want to call me a "_Jew"_ and dress it up a little?  You're dumber than dogshit.
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Lol wot? Derp
> 
> Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag  cheap joo



Where is YOURS?  You lobbied for it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol wot? Derp
> 
> Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag  cheap joo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.angloisraelites.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh boy
> 
> Do the crackajoos have green cards or do they believe in the right to come and go with forged doctors notes and drivers licenses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one of those dick lickers that wanted all that National ID bullshit.  I lobbied against it.  Now that we have a use for it, you want to call me a "_Jew"_ and dress it up a little?  You're dumber than dogshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What ?
> And I did not call you a jew I called you a cheap commie joo
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Gdjjr

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> That's actually INalienable rights, Thomas Jefferson.


*In Congress, July 4, 1776.*

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


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





__





						Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
					

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




					www.archives.gov


----------



## Gdjjr

Eric Arthur Blair said:


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


Yes. Your ignorance betrays you.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol wot? Derp
> 
> Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag  cheap joo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is YOURS?  You lobbied for it.
Click to expand...


Of course I did insane  person


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Gdjjr said:


> Yes. Your ignorance betrays you.


Well that's just extremely stupid of you.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


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


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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol wot? Derp
> 
> Wheres your government issued doctors note and vaccination tag  cheap joo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is YOURS?  You lobbied for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I did insane  person
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> BAM... You are wrong again! How does that keep happening?
> 
> 
> 
> My cited definition says the two words are interchangeable and mean the same thing.
> So no matter which version you chose you wind up saying the same exact thing.
> But by all means go ahead and post another long pointless exercise in redundant irrelevancy, clown.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Deplorable Yankee




----------



## Gdjjr

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Well that's just extremely stupid of you.


Not really.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the federal equivalent to a local improper U Turn. There is NO word game. Congress tried to change the wording from improper to unlawful. That bill failed.
> 
> 
> 
> A U-turn that gets you removed from the country.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do think this land belongs to the Mexicans or the brown people of Sun, or some such bullshit and you on their side AGAINST your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see where there is a caveat about skin pigment in the declaration, nor in the constitution, which are the rules
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. "Mexicans" are a nation to the South of US, with an historical claim to some of our land. "People of the Sun" is a racial term used by some anti-white racists, in this case referring to such people from outside of our nation, that the lefty believes has some right to our territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between exercising Liberty and taking over your territory.  Citizenship to the third world is what leads to a takeover of your territory.  There is no invasion when the relationship is consensual between willing Americans and willing foreigners.   You're conflating the two which is why you stay mired in arguments.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My answer to that is, A. no there isn't, and one leads to the other.
> 
> 
> First of all, by changing my nation, without my informed consent (as part of the assembled group, Americans,) the immigrants, (illegal and legal) are violating my right to self determination.
> 
> 
> and second of all, as they increasingly take over the reins of government, it will NOT be about consensual relations between wiling Americans and willing foreigners, but foreigners imposing their culture and politics on US against our will.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do think this land belongs to the Mexicans or the brown people of Sun, or some such bullshit and you on their side AGAINST your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see where there is a caveat about skin pigment in the declaration, nor in the constitution, which are the rules
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. "Mexicans" are a nation to the South of US, with an historical claim to some of our land. "People of the Sun" is a racial term used by some anti-white racists, in this case referring to such people from outside of our nation, that the lefty believes has some right to our territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between exercising Liberty and taking over your territory.  Citizenship to the third world is what leads to a takeover of your territory.  There is no invasion when the relationship is consensual between willing Americans and willing foreigners.   You're conflating the two which is why you stay mired in arguments.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My answer to that is, A. no there isn't, and one leads to the other.
> 
> 
> First of all, by changing my nation, without my informed consent (as part of the assembled group, Americans,) the immigrants, (illegal and legal) are violating my right to self determination.
> 
> 
> and second of all, as they increasingly take over the reins of government, it will NOT be about consensual relations between wiling Americans and willing foreigners, but foreigners imposing their culture and politics on US against our will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response is convoluted, Correll.  You have been informed that there is no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  It is a misnomer.  Immigration is citizenship.  You don't seem to be able to process that.  People coming here to work and partake of the free market are not citizens nor do they seek to become citizens NOR do we need them as citizens.  Those people have nothing to do with your Right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they do, because they or their children will be become both part of the community and citizens and thus voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What IS affecting your Right to self determination is the fact that you cannot hire, fire, rent to and do business with only those people you want to do business with.  We are forced to hire people without regard to race, religion, sexual persuasion, etc., etc. whether we want to or not... forced to buy and sell from those people... forced to rent to them.  Like the right's misuse of the word immigration, you have a mental stumbling block with self determination.  If we were free to voluntarily build our own businesses and free to associate with whomever like you would have a Right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Individual choice, is not the same as government policy. An individual has the Right to decide to say, hire who he wants to work in his place of business. You might disagree with the way that right is limited today. I doubt that you are against it is principle.
> 
> A restaurant owner wants to hire high school girls to work as cheap waitresses? That is legal and fine.
> 
> 
> A strip club owner wants to hire high school girls to work as strippers? I suspect that you support the Right of the local voters to have laws against that.
> 
> 
> Policy to regulate the labor market, is not a violation of the Right to Self Determination of the business owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By interfering in the free market, you force foreigners to become citizens.  That, in turn, changes the make-up of our legislators and deprives us of having the government envisioned by the founders / framers.  Your efforts are bass ackwards.  Give people the Right to build their own communities.  The whole term MAGA means that America was, at some point, great.  So, what happened?  You want more and more laws.  My strategy is to repeal laws until we get back to America was when it was great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The complete breakdown of the lies of multiculturalism, as tacitly admitted to by rightwinger, in another thread just a few minutes ago, is lending credibility to that as a solution.
> 
> 
> But I still want to round up the illegals and deport them. And indefinitely extend the immigration ban.
Click to expand...


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter, let's go into more depth with your above thought.
First and foremost, in my mind, free markets are what made this Country what it was- a beacon of Liberty, so to speak. So, there are 2 definitive words there. No.1 is free, which is unencumbered and No.2 is markets.
So, what happened, if you will, is a dumbing down of citizens. By definition "laws" encumber and restrict "markets" and citizens who participate, so, neither exists as intended. I can't seem to find, in the rules for those granted the privilege of law writing, the authority to "tell" citizens what they can or can't do in reference to "markets". That citizens accept the interference speaks to being dumbed down loud and clear.
This dumbing down came about by mandates (interference from non-enumerated power) and extortion of the Public's Education-

As can be witnessed by the number of misinformed posts, our life is a mountain to climb with precarious and jagged out croppings dangerous to even the concept of Liberty, never mind the exercising of.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


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


Do _you_ have a point? It seems like you don't because people are deported from the USA all the time well 
after the act of sneaking across the border.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

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

Another really pointless irrelevant distinction, which you seem to specialize in.
Has there ever in the history of US jurisprudence been a case whee the inalienable/unalienable issue
has been at the base of a contentious point of law?

You really know how to make an impression and my impression of you is that you are a conceited know it all
wanna be. But it seems everything you know is wrong or irrelevant and wrong.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do think this land belongs to the Mexicans or the brown people of Sun, or some such bullshit and you on their side AGAINST your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see where there is a caveat about skin pigment in the declaration, nor in the constitution, which are the rules
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. "Mexicans" are a nation to the South of US, with an historical claim to some of our land. "People of the Sun" is a racial term used by some anti-white racists, in this case referring to such people from outside of our nation, that the lefty believes has some right to our territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between exercising Liberty and taking over your territory.  Citizenship to the third world is what leads to a takeover of your territory.  There is no invasion when the relationship is consensual between willing Americans and willing foreigners.   You're conflating the two which is why you stay mired in arguments.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My answer to that is, A. no there isn't, and one leads to the other.
> 
> 
> First of all, by changing my nation, without my informed consent (as part of the assembled group, Americans,) the immigrants, (illegal and legal) are violating my right to self determination.
> 
> 
> and second of all, as they increasingly take over the reins of government, it will NOT be about consensual relations between wiling Americans and willing foreigners, but foreigners imposing their culture and politics on US against our will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response is convoluted, Correll.  You have been informed that there is no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  It is a misnomer.  Immigration is citizenship.  You don't seem to be able to process that.  People coming here to work and partake of the free market are not citizens nor do they seek to become citizens NOR do we need them as citizens.  Those people have nothing to do with your Right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they do, because they or their children will be become both part of the community and citizens and thus voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What IS affecting your Right to self determination is the fact that you cannot hire, fire, rent to and do business with only those people you want to do business with.  We are forced to hire people without regard to race, religion, sexual persuasion, etc., etc. whether we want to or not... forced to buy and sell from those people... forced to rent to them.  Like the right's misuse of the word immigration, you have a mental stumbling block with self determination.  If we were free to voluntarily build our own businesses and free to associate with whomever like you would have a Right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Individual choice, is not the same as government policy. An individual has the Right to decide to say, hire who he wants to work in his place of business. You might disagree with the way that right is limited today. I doubt that you are against it is principle.
> 
> A restaurant owner wants to hire high school girls to work as cheap waitresses? That is legal and fine.
> 
> 
> A strip club owner wants to hire high school girls to work as strippers? I suspect that you support the Right of the local voters to have laws against that.
> 
> 
> Policy to regulate the labor market, is not a violation of the Right to Self Determination of the business owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By interfering in the free market, you force foreigners to become citizens.  That, in turn, changes the make-up of our legislators and deprives us of having the government envisioned by the founders / framers.  Your efforts are bass ackwards.  Give people the Right to build their own communities.  The whole term MAGA means that America was, at some point, great.  So, what happened?  You want more and more laws.  My strategy is to repeal laws until we get back to America was when it was great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The complete breakdown of the lies of multiculturalism, as tacitly admitted to by rightwinger, in another thread just a few minutes ago, is lending credibility to that as a solution.
> 
> 
> But I still want to round up the illegals and deport them. And indefinitely extend the immigration ban.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The problem with you being able to "_round up the illegals_" as you call it has four immediate problems:

1)  In order to round up people you must have probable cause to believe they've committed a crime.  So, like it or not, accept it or not, once here you cannot arrest an undocumented foreigner on account of their status because the United States Supreme Court HELD: *it is not a crime for a crime for an undocumented foreigner to remain in the United States.  *

2)  There are two little things you may heard about in the United States Constitution.  One is the Fourth Amendment which requires *probable cause *in order to stop any individual to see if they may have potentially committed a crime.  The second of these things in the Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment which provides for the "_*equal protection of the laws*_... FOR "*ALL PERSONS"* (as differentiated from citizens.)  The mere fact that you call people illegal anything shows me that you've never actually sat down and read the Constitution.  For if you have denied those people the required due process, the government is justified in calling you a domestic terrorist, enemy combatant, or whatever else they want to call you in order to control you.  Innocent until proven guilty, Correll

3)  The Constitution does not give the federal government any authority over foreigners save of passing an uniform Rule of Naturalization.  The laws you want passed exist only because the United States Supreme Court granted "_plenary powers_" to Congress.  This is not the first time we've had this discussion and yet you have failed to point to a single sentence in the Constitution and show me where it gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to bestow upon Congress ANY powers

4)  Most undocumented foreigners enter the United States via proper channels.  Nothing can be done about them overstaying their visas without jeopardizing *your* Liberties.

You are allowing your hate and your stupidity to guide your strategies.  If America were great, then repeal laws back to the point when America was great.  Then, and only then, will your problem be resolved.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> "Your cited definition has ZERO authority in a court of law. "
> 
> Another really pointless irrelevant distinction, which you seem to specialize in.
> Has there ever in the history of US jurisprudence been a case whee the inalienable/unalienable issue
> has been at the base of a contentious point of law?
> 
> You really know how to make an impression and my impression of you is that you are a conceited know it all
> wanna be. But it seems everything you know is wrong or irrelevant and wrong.



The answer to that question is both yes and no.  The answer is no  because people with standing do not bring the issue to the court's attention.  The answer is yes because the United States Supreme Court has already explained how they were able to circumvent the Constitution and end the concept of *unalienable* Rights.  Now, that would take a few paragraphs to explain and prove, but you've proven to be such a stupid son of a bitch that you can't read more than two paragraphs, it isn't worth explaining it to you.  If someone wants the answer, post and I will give you the legal citations showing where the United States Supreme Court legislated from the bench and changed the Constitution to allow for robbing you of your Rights.  BTW, the high Court says you don't have any Rights.

I spent several decades in the courts fighting for our Liberties - sometimes with my own ass on the line.  If that don't set well with you because you back losing strategies, I don't care how I come off.  People like you with your lack of experience helped set back the constitutionalists by 50 years with your bad strategies.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point? An improper U Turn has an immediate penalty as well. But, like an improper U Turn, once the act is done and nobody catches it, it becomes irrelevant as a point of law. Now, that is a fact, not a partisan political statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Do _you_ have a point? It seems like you don't because people are deported from the USA all the time well
> after the act of sneaking across the border.
Click to expand...


Thomas Paine made my greatest point.  It's one that will fly over your head:

"_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._"

You begged for it, the courts took your Rights and now you're bitching about the government you live under, unable to understand how you screwed yourself.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> The answer to that question is both yes and no. The answer is no because people with standing do not bring the issue to the court's attention. The answer is yes because the United States Supreme Court has already explained how they were able to circumvent the Constitution and end the concept of *unalienable* Rights. Now, that would take a few paragraphs to explain and prove, but you've proven to be such a stupid son of a bitch that you can't read more than two paragraphs, it isn't worth explaining it to you. If someone wants the answer, post and I will give you the legal citations showing where the United States Supreme Court legislated from the bench and changed the Constitution to allow for robbing you of your Rights. BTW, the high Court says you don't have any Rights.


Hopefully this ends the amazing inalienable/unalienable dispute..... 
I really appreciated your impressive command of the issue...
You have greatly illuminated my understanding of the matter...
It is exceeded only by your grasp of the Orwell novel 1984....

By the way, there is no "right" to violate US immigration law. A nation's first duty is to enforce border security and keep unwanted individuals out.
Flooding the US job market with cheap, uneducated compliant workers
may please fat greedy businessmen but it puts native workers at a distinct disadvantage when the "Walmart
Syndrome" kicks in.
A business hires low wage workers and then passes off onto the public the cost of
providing a safety net for those workers (and their extended families) in the form of medical, educational, legal, housing assistance.

And in turn this forms a magnet attracting other illegal low wage workers burdening a community even
more, altering a community's make up it makes the public an unwilling business partner with said
greedy individuals it increases taxes, crime and urban blight.

I lived in a county where the wine industry, in the space of one generation, was that "Wal Mart" tail
that wagged the dog. You can't tell me a thing about someone's "right" to destroy a community.
A "stupid son of a bitch" like you can't comprehend, however.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that question is both yes and no. The answer is no because people with standing do not bring the issue to the court's attention. The answer is yes because the United States Supreme Court has already explained how they were able to circumvent the Constitution and end the concept of *unalienable* Rights. Now, that would take a few paragraphs to explain and prove, but you've proven to be such a stupid son of a bitch that you can't read more than two paragraphs, it isn't worth explaining it to you. If someone wants the answer, post and I will give you the legal citations showing where the United States Supreme Court legislated from the bench and changed the Constitution to allow for robbing you of your Rights. BTW, the high Court says you don't have any Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully this ends the amazing inalienable/unalienable dispute.....
> I really appreciated your impressive command of the issue...
> You have greatly illuminated my understanding of the matter...
> It is exceeded only by your grasp of the Orwell novel 1984....
> 
> By the way, there is no "right" to violate US immigration law. A nation's first duty is to enforce border security and keep unwanted individuals out. Flooding the US job market with cheap, uneducated compliant workers
> may please fat greedy businessmen but it puts native workers at a distinct disadvantage when the "Walmart
> Syndrome" kicks in.
> A business hires low wage workers and then passes off onto the public the cost of
> providing a safety net for those workers in the form of medical, educational, legal, housing assistance.
> 
> And in turn this forms a magnet attracting other illegal low wage workers burdening a community even
> more, altering a community's make up it makes the public an unwilling business partner with said
> greedy individuals it increases taxes, crime and urban blight.
> 
> I lived in a county where the wine industry, in the space of one generation, was that "Wal Mart" tail
> that wagged the dog. You can't tell me a thing someone's "right" to destroy a community.
> A "stupid son of a bitch" like you can't comprehend, however.
Click to expand...


You can type a lot of words and not say a damn thing, but then be intimidated by ten or twelve paragraphs.  That inability to reason only proves to us that YOU didn't understand 1984.  Now rather than to screw with me and try to tell people what you think I know based upon your juvenile strategies, you should focus on how little you do know about me.  If you could use your brain, you could get the outcome you wanted... just not using the strategies you are using.  The last 20 years of people like you compared to the 20 before that  (the activists I knew) prove it.  My words to you: A man that don't use his brain may as well been born with two assholes.  You are the poster boy for those words.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> You can type a lot of words and not say a damn thing, but then be intimidated by ten or twelve paragraphs. That inability to reason only proves to us that YOU didn't understand 1984. Now rather than to screw with me and try to tell people what you think I know based upon your juvenile strategies, you should focus on how little you do know about me. If you could use your brain, you could get the outcome you wanted... just not using the strategies you are using. The last 20 years of people like you compared to the 20 before that (the activists I knew) prove it. My words to you: A man that don't use his brain may as well been born with two assholes. You are the poster boy for those words.


A juvenile rant filled with insults, accusations and irony. You are a waste of time and, I suspect, DNA
and the electrons it takes to send out your crazed screeds.

You have my permission to go fuck yourself.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Gdjjr said:


> Porter, let's go into more depth with your above thought.
> First and foremost, in my mind, free markets are what made this Country what it was- a beacon of Liberty, so to speak. So, there are 2 definitive words there. No.1 is free, which is unencumbered and No.2 is markets.
> So, what happened, if you will, is a dumbing down of citizens. By definition "laws" encumber and restrict "markets" and citizens who participate, so, neither exists as intended. I can't seem to find, in the rules for those granted the privilege of law writing, the authority to "tell" citizens what they can or can't do in reference to "markets". That citizens accept the interference speaks to being dumbed down loud and clear.
> This dumbing down came about by mandates (interference from non-enumerated power) and extortion of the Public's Education-
> 
> As can be witnessed by the number of misinformed posts, our life is a mountain to climb with precarious and jagged out croppings dangerous to even the concept of Liberty, never mind the exercising of.



I think that between you and I we have most of the puzzle solved.  What is ironic is that I *think* we could solve the issue for both sides to their mutual satisfaction (less a few extremists playing word games to hide the fact that they want an all white America.)  IF there were not so many laws and it was easier to make a profit without over-regulation and IF employers hired the employees of their choice, you'd find communities where the MAGA crowd would exist and work in a community conducive to their interests and values.  *Nobody *would be forced to hire a foreigner, black, Hispanic, white, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, member of the LGBTQP community; they wouldn't have to rent to them, sell to them or be forced into doing business with them.  So, if a Hispanic exercises their Rights and travels to MAGA town, but nobody will hire them, rent to them, etc. then they set out for Pelosiville.  There Nancy will greet them and all will be good in the world.

Since Nancy cannot tap into federal resources to keep up her Hispanic fans, she has to get some kind of self sustaining economy going or the Hispanics are going home - no jobs in Pelosiville and they aren't welcome in MAGA town.  But, if Pelosiville started making widgets and it was super profitable, I'm afraid the MAGA crowd would still blow a cork, believing that they are entitled to the fruits of the labors of those in Pelosiville.  That would be their only reason for not considering what you and I have said.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can type a lot of words and not say a damn thing, but then be intimidated by ten or twelve paragraphs. That inability to reason only proves to us that YOU didn't understand 1984. Now rather than to screw with me and try to tell people what you think I know based upon your juvenile strategies, you should focus on how little you do know about me. If you could use your brain, you could get the outcome you wanted... just not using the strategies you are using. The last 20 years of people like you compared to the 20 before that (the activists I knew) prove it. My words to you: A man that don't use his brain may as well been born with two assholes. You are the poster boy for those words.
> 
> 
> 
> A juvenile rant filled with insults, accusations and irony. You are a waste of time and, I suspect, DNA
> and the electrons it takes to send out your crazed screeds.
> 
> You have my permission to go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...


That was the greatest projection post ever put on USM.  Yes, your rant was juvenile.  Your constant insults and accusations doth testify against you and exposed your lack of intellect.  The DNA comment was probably right as well.  If you looked in your family tree, it's obvious what they would find would be dangerously close to giving credence to Darwin's theory of evolution.  When I climbed in the gutter to meet you on your level, you went full bore ape shit.       

Whose permission did you get when you fucked yourself?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Brilliant unhinged post. The stuff the Unibomber manifesto was made of. _Clap clap clap_.....
Oh, I almost forgot .  Needless to say I've put a whole new wing on my ignore list just for you.

You didn't address one single point I made in favor of vicious character assassination but I don't think I
could have provoked such a ruthless response without hitting target over and over again.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Brilliant unhinged post. The stuff the Unibomber manifesto was made of. _Clap clap clap_.....
> Oh, I almost forgot .  Needless to say I've put a whole new wing on my ignore list just for you.
> 
> You didn't address one single point I made in favor of vicious character assassination but I don't think I
> could have provoked such a ruthless response without hitting target over and over again.



Why did you start your criticisms off with character assassination?  You keep talking to yourself on the Internet and we're going to start worrying about your mental stability.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do think this land belongs to the Mexicans or the brown people of Sun, or some such bullshit and you on their side AGAINST your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see where there is a caveat about skin pigment in the declaration, nor in the constitution, which are the rules
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. "Mexicans" are a nation to the South of US, with an historical claim to some of our land. "People of the Sun" is a racial term used by some anti-white racists, in this case referring to such people from outside of our nation, that the lefty believes has some right to our territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between exercising Liberty and taking over your territory.  Citizenship to the third world is what leads to a takeover of your territory.  There is no invasion when the relationship is consensual between willing Americans and willing foreigners.   You're conflating the two which is why you stay mired in arguments.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My answer to that is, A. no there isn't, and one leads to the other.
> 
> 
> First of all, by changing my nation, without my informed consent (as part of the assembled group, Americans,) the immigrants, (illegal and legal) are violating my right to self determination.
> 
> 
> and second of all, as they increasingly take over the reins of government, it will NOT be about consensual relations between wiling Americans and willing foreigners, but foreigners imposing their culture and politics on US against our will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response is convoluted, Correll.  You have been informed that there is no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  It is a misnomer.  Immigration is citizenship.  You don't seem to be able to process that.  People coming here to work and partake of the free market are not citizens nor do they seek to become citizens NOR do we need them as citizens.  Those people have nothing to do with your Right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they do, because they or their children will be become both part of the community and citizens and thus voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What IS affecting your Right to self determination is the fact that you cannot hire, fire, rent to and do business with only those people you want to do business with.  We are forced to hire people without regard to race, religion, sexual persuasion, etc., etc. whether we want to or not... forced to buy and sell from those people... forced to rent to them.  Like the right's misuse of the word immigration, you have a mental stumbling block with self determination.  If we were free to voluntarily build our own businesses and free to associate with whomever like you would have a Right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Individual choice, is not the same as government policy. An individual has the Right to decide to say, hire who he wants to work in his place of business. You might disagree with the way that right is limited today. I doubt that you are against it is principle.
> 
> A restaurant owner wants to hire high school girls to work as cheap waitresses? That is legal and fine.
> 
> 
> A strip club owner wants to hire high school girls to work as strippers? I suspect that you support the Right of the local voters to have laws against that.
> 
> 
> Policy to regulate the labor market, is not a violation of the Right to Self Determination of the business owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By interfering in the free market, you force foreigners to become citizens.  That, in turn, changes the make-up of our legislators and deprives us of having the government envisioned by the founders / framers.  Your efforts are bass ackwards.  Give people the Right to build their own communities.  The whole term MAGA means that America was, at some point, great.  So, what happened?  You want more and more laws.  My strategy is to repeal laws until we get back to America was when it was great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The complete breakdown of the lies of multiculturalism, as tacitly admitted to by rightwinger, in another thread just a few minutes ago, is lending credibility to that as a solution.
> 
> 
> But I still want to round up the illegals and deport them. And indefinitely extend the immigration ban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with you being able to "_round up the illegals_" as you call it has four immediate problems:
> 
> 1)  In order to round up people you must have probable cause to believe they've committed a crime.  So, like it or not, accept it or not, once here you cannot arrest an undocumented foreigner on account of their status because the United States Supreme Court HELD: *it is not a crime for a crime for an undocumented foreigner to remain in the United States.  *
> 
> 2)  There are two little things you may heard about in the United States Constitution.  One is the Fourth Amendment which requires *probable cause *in order to stop any individual to see if they may have potentially committed a crime.  The second of these things in the Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment which provides for the "_*equal protection of the laws*_... FOR "*ALL PERSONS"* (as differentiated from citizens.)  The mere fact that you call people illegal anything shows me that you've never actually sat down and read the Constitution.  For if you have denied those people the required due process, the government is justified in calling you a domestic terrorist, enemy combatant, or whatever else they want to call you in order to control you.  Innocent until proven guilty, Correll
> 
> 3)  The Constitution does not give the federal government any authority over foreigners save of passing an uniform Rule of Naturalization.  The laws you want passed exist only because the United States Supreme Court granted "_plenary powers_" to Congress.  This is not the first time we've had this discussion and yet you have failed to point to a single sentence in the Constitution and show me where it gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to bestow upon Congress ANY powers
> 
> 4)  Most undocumented foreigners enter the United States via proper channels.  Nothing can be done about them overstaying their visas without jeopardizing *your* Liberties.
> 
> You are allowing your hate and your stupidity to guide your strategies.  If America were great, then repeal laws back to the point when America was great.  Then, and only then, will your problem be resolved.
Click to expand...




That enforcing the law has difficulties is noted. I, as an untrained layperson can imagine many ways to deal with some of the issues, and I'm sure that professionals can deal with many of the others.


That it is hard, is not a reason to not do it. That it is hard is not a principle that makes doing it wrong.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do think this land belongs to the Mexicans or the brown people of Sun, or some such bullshit and you on their side AGAINST your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see where there is a caveat about skin pigment in the declaration, nor in the constitution, which are the rules
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. "Mexicans" are a nation to the South of US, with an historical claim to some of our land. "People of the Sun" is a racial term used by some anti-white racists, in this case referring to such people from outside of our nation, that the lefty believes has some right to our territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between exercising Liberty and taking over your territory.  Citizenship to the third world is what leads to a takeover of your territory.  There is no invasion when the relationship is consensual between willing Americans and willing foreigners.   You're conflating the two which is why you stay mired in arguments.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My answer to that is, A. no there isn't, and one leads to the other.
> 
> 
> First of all, by changing my nation, without my informed consent (as part of the assembled group, Americans,) the immigrants, (illegal and legal) are violating my right to self determination.
> 
> 
> and second of all, as they increasingly take over the reins of government, it will NOT be about consensual relations between wiling Americans and willing foreigners, but foreigners imposing their culture and politics on US against our will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response is convoluted, Correll.  You have been informed that there is no such thing as "_illegal immigration_."  It is a misnomer.  Immigration is citizenship.  You don't seem to be able to process that.  People coming here to work and partake of the free market are not citizens nor do they seek to become citizens NOR do we need them as citizens.  Those people have nothing to do with your Right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they do, because they or their children will be become both part of the community and citizens and thus voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What IS affecting your Right to self determination is the fact that you cannot hire, fire, rent to and do business with only those people you want to do business with.  We are forced to hire people without regard to race, religion, sexual persuasion, etc., etc. whether we want to or not... forced to buy and sell from those people... forced to rent to them.  Like the right's misuse of the word immigration, you have a mental stumbling block with self determination.  If we were free to voluntarily build our own businesses and free to associate with whomever like you would have a Right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Individual choice, is not the same as government policy. An individual has the Right to decide to say, hire who he wants to work in his place of business. You might disagree with the way that right is limited today. I doubt that you are against it is principle.
> 
> A restaurant owner wants to hire high school girls to work as cheap waitresses? That is legal and fine.
> 
> 
> A strip club owner wants to hire high school girls to work as strippers? I suspect that you support the Right of the local voters to have laws against that.
> 
> 
> Policy to regulate the labor market, is not a violation of the Right to Self Determination of the business owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By interfering in the free market, you force foreigners to become citizens.  That, in turn, changes the make-up of our legislators and deprives us of having the government envisioned by the founders / framers.  Your efforts are bass ackwards.  Give people the Right to build their own communities.  The whole term MAGA means that America was, at some point, great.  So, what happened?  You want more and more laws.  My strategy is to repeal laws until we get back to America was when it was great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The complete breakdown of the lies of multiculturalism, as tacitly admitted to by rightwinger, in another thread just a few minutes ago, is lending credibility to that as a solution.
> 
> 
> But I still want to round up the illegals and deport them. And indefinitely extend the immigration ban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with you being able to "_round up the illegals_" as you call it has four immediate problems:
> 
> 1)  In order to round up people you must have probable cause to believe they've committed a crime.  So, like it or not, accept it or not, once here you cannot arrest an undocumented foreigner on account of their status because the United States Supreme Court HELD: *it is not a crime for a crime for an undocumented foreigner to remain in the United States.  *
> 
> 2)  There are two little things you may heard about in the United States Constitution.  One is the Fourth Amendment which requires *probable cause *in order to stop any individual to see if they may have potentially committed a crime.  The second of these things in the Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment which provides for the "_*equal protection of the laws*_... FOR "*ALL PERSONS"* (as differentiated from citizens.)  The mere fact that you call people illegal anything shows me that you've never actually sat down and read the Constitution.  For if you have denied those people the required due process, the government is justified in calling you a domestic terrorist, enemy combatant, or whatever else they want to call you in order to control you.  Innocent until proven guilty, Correll
> 
> 3)  The Constitution does not give the federal government any authority over foreigners save of passing an uniform Rule of Naturalization.  The laws you want passed exist only because the United States Supreme Court granted "_plenary powers_" to Congress.  This is not the first time we've had this discussion and yet you have failed to point to a single sentence in the Constitution and show me where it gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to bestow upon Congress ANY powers
> 
> 4)  Most undocumented foreigners enter the United States via proper channels.  Nothing can be done about them overstaying their visas without jeopardizing *your* Liberties.
> 
> You are allowing your hate and your stupidity to guide your strategies.  If America were great, then repeal laws back to the point when America was great.  Then, and only then, will your problem be resolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That enforcing the law has difficulties is noted. I, as an untrained layperson can imagine many ways to deal with some of the issues, and I'm sure that professionals can deal with many of the others.
> 
> 
> That it is hard, is not a reason to not do it. That it is hard is not a principle that makes doing it wrong.
Click to expand...


You, as a layperson, need to study the law before advocating a solution.  The solutions you keep harping on may come back to bite you in the ass.  You know, Correll, there is a question that people like you have never asked me.  Most are not intelligent enough to.  Most read my posts and cannot read between the lines.  So I let the heathen rage and the few with a minimal IQ points figure it out.

About 17 years ago I was the guy the John Birch Society, patriot groups, constitutionalists, etc. invited to speak in public gatherings.  I personally underwrote the costs associated with public meetings twice monthly wherein crowd size was 65 to 80 people.  AFTER 9 / 11 the constitutionalists, patriots, etc. began to disappear and now have regrouped under the general umbrella of the MAGA supporters.  White nationalists seem to be the only think tank these people can rely on and Trump does not finance his own think tank study groups.  In short, the movement changed; I didn't.  

What we've witnessed since I quit being an activist is a movement that has outspent the liberals, Democrats, and the left by leaps and bounds.  Everything from the creation of the  Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security to the so - called "_Patriot Act_," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, Constitution Free Zone, armed drones watching us 24 / 7 / 365 and now the coming cashless society has *YOUR *name signed to it.  All of your lobbying has not, according to your own people, not resolved the perceived problem.  What it did do was to get a lot of innocent patriots thrown into jail, prison and many into graves.  I had to fight for my life, for three years, because people just like you were supporting those laws and it was Tea Party Republican, James Sensenbrenner, the poster boy at the time for Hispanic hate groups that introduced the so -called "_Patriot Act_" that was used to pursue me by.  And what did those Tea Party types do when Uncle Scam came after the leadership of that era?  They threw our ass under the bus.  So your ideas may sound like the perfect solution until you understand the Constitution.  What you dish out to the foreigners is going to be dished out to you.  Then, again, it's planned that way.  Your ideas are simply solutions you want to apply to a problem that doesn't exist.  Foreigners are here because our culture changed and the masses want them here.  There is but one solution.  Change your culture.  But, for you personally, I'd suggest you try reading up on some American history and social civics.   Then reevaluate your layman solutions.  For if your solutions are related to your political swill, then the due process you want to deny to others will be denied to you.  Been there, done that and not willing to do it again.


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter Rockwell said:


> Most read my posts and cannot read between the lines.


They won't even comprehend the text written, never mind reading between lines- that requires more than a shallow and narrow mind can conceive. All they care about is getting their 2 cents worth in as though it's a dollars worth-



Porter Rockwell said:


> What you dish out to the foreigners is going to be dished out to you.


And there is this ^ ^ ^ ^ ^- what goes around comes around. Voters are either tools or enemies.
Tools are kept in a shed, in the dark, with the only light being when tools are needed- and it's a dim light.
Enemies? What are they good for?






It's glaringly simple but most people are too blind, willfully blind, to see-


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter Rockwell said:


> A man that don't use his brain may as well been born with two assholes. You are the poster boy for those words.


----------



## Ame®icano

In other news... 

*Mexico Has Deported Nearly All Illegal Immigrants from Shelters to Contain Coronavirus*


----------



## 80zephyr

Porter Rockwell said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that we have no right to this land and it is the right of Mexicans and the like to take it from us?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man hyperbole- ALL men have certain unalienable rights- there are no ethnic caveats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an unalienable right means anything, it also means that the people that are being invaded are also being denied their rights.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mark,
> 
> The Anti Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA  *(APMs)* supporters have not articulated a Right they were denied because a foreigner came into the United States.  Did someone deny you a Right you had by taking advantage of an opportunity willingly offered?
> 
> *IF* undocumented foreigners are getting any of your tax money, it is because the government *YOU* voted for gave it to them OR they are stealing it... in which case the APMs already got the Orwellian National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap passed and that was supposed to catch those people - at a great loss to your Liberties as well as mine.  Remember what Benjamin Franklin said that those who trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserve neither?  It's because once you forfeit your Liberty you forfeit Safety as well.
> 
> Be specific and tell me what Rights you've been denied on account of non-citizens participating in the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me simply say this. Open borders are incompatible with a welfare state.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're quoting Milton Friedman.  Milton Friedman did not believe in a welfare state.  Neither should we.
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question. Now answer mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post no. 163
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post 163
> 
> 1. Most of that seemed to be supporting your example as a valid example of a problem. Which I did not challenge sooo.
> 
> 
> 2. If your solution is to bring in cheap foreign labor to do the work, then I will oppose you, no matter whether or not you deny personal responsibility for the results of your policy.
> 
> 3. You suggest fixing our culture. Sounds good. I don't how or why allowing immigrants to flood our country while doing that, would be a good policy.
> 
> Nowhere do I see my question answered. So, when are you going to answer it?
> Do you or do you not believe in UNalienable rights. Simple yes or no will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you still beat your wife? A simple yes or no will do.  Yes, I believe in unalienable rights. I also believe that the rights of others does not give them a right to invade your home.  If a person brought his family into your home, does he have a right to stay there without your permission?
> 
> A simple yes or no will suffice.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mark, when Americans and foreigners do business willingly, the Americans have consented to that relationship.  So, they have permission - though not necessary since *unalienable *Rights preceded the founding of government and are above the laws of man.
> 
> But, do tell, what Rights have been taken from you by way of foreigners engaging in the free market.
Click to expand...


Not foreigners. Illegals. When Trump finally tried to limit the illegals in this country, wages went up. That was not a coincidence. 

Mark


----------



## danielpalos

Now could be a good time to upgrade local infrastructure.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

80zephyr said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that we have no right to this land and it is the right of Mexicans and the like to take it from us?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man hyperbole- ALL men have certain unalienable rights- there are no ethnic caveats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an unalienable right means anything, it also means that the people that are being invaded are also being denied their rights.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mark,
> 
> The Anti Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA  *(APMs)* supporters have not articulated a Right they were denied because a foreigner came into the United States.  Did someone deny you a Right you had by taking advantage of an opportunity willingly offered?
> 
> *IF* undocumented foreigners are getting any of your tax money, it is because the government *YOU* voted for gave it to them OR they are stealing it... in which case the APMs already got the Orwellian National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap passed and that was supposed to catch those people - at a great loss to your Liberties as well as mine.  Remember what Benjamin Franklin said that those who trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserve neither?  It's because once you forfeit your Liberty you forfeit Safety as well.
> 
> Be specific and tell me what Rights you've been denied on account of non-citizens participating in the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me simply say this. Open borders are incompatible with a welfare state.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're quoting Milton Friedman.  Milton Friedman did not believe in a welfare state.  Neither should we.
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question. Now answer mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post no. 163
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post 163
> 
> 1. Most of that seemed to be supporting your example as a valid example of a problem. Which I did not challenge sooo.
> 
> 
> 2. If your solution is to bring in cheap foreign labor to do the work, then I will oppose you, no matter whether or not you deny personal responsibility for the results of your policy.
> 
> 3. You suggest fixing our culture. Sounds good. I don't how or why allowing immigrants to flood our country while doing that, would be a good policy.
> 
> Nowhere do I see my question answered. So, when are you going to answer it?
> Do you or do you not believe in UNalienable rights. Simple yes or no will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you still beat your wife? A simple yes or no will do.  Yes, I believe in unalienable rights. I also believe that the rights of others does not give them a right to invade your home.  If a person brought his family into your home, does he have a right to stay there without your permission?
> 
> A simple yes or no will suffice.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mark, when Americans and foreigners do business willingly, the Americans have consented to that relationship.  So, they have permission - though not necessary since *unalienable *Rights preceded the founding of government and are above the laws of man.
> 
> But, do tell, what Rights have been taken from you by way of foreigners engaging in the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not foreigners. Illegals. When Trump finally tried to limit the illegals in this country, wages went up. That was not a coincidence.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

 
Mark, without taking sides, do you support the Constitution of the United States as originally written and intended *OR* do you support the Democrats version of a _"living_" Constitution?


----------



## DOTR

Gdjjr said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody except godverment employees walks all over anyone- being disingenuous doesn't lend credibility-
> I'm here in Texas lived here all my life (except when I was stationed in Long Beach in the Navy) and the only problem I ever had with Mexicans was when some, spoiled, smart ass white boy went to the Mexican part of town and started trouble and came running back to where we were- he went there first.
> My best friend in the Navy was a Mexican from Rockdale, Tx -
Click to expand...


    Let’s sum up this post ...”Mexicans good-whites bad”


----------



## DOTR

Every illegal should be rounded up, starting tomorrow, and deported.


----------



## DOTR

Gdjjr said:


> The wall will do more to keep us in..... line than to keep anyone out. We are already asked about citizenship within 100 miles of the Rio Grande- the Police State despises free movement.



  Cognitive dissonance again. A porous border is why you are harassed.


----------



## SourKat

Gdjjr said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody except godverment employees walks all over anyone- being disingenuous doesn't lend credibility-
> I'm here in Texas lived here all my life (except when I was stationed in Long Beach in the Navy) and the only problem I ever had with Mexicans was when some, spoiled, smart ass white boy went to the Mexican part of town and started trouble and came running back to where we were- he went there first.
> My best friend in the Navy was a Mexican from Rockdale, Tx -
Click to expand...

I realize this comment is old but your response in and of itself is a problem. You don't even SEE a problem with the nation your ancestors died to establish being taken over by foreign entities.  "When some spoiled, smart ass White boy went to the Mexican part of town."  You don't see an issue with their BEING a "Mexican part of town", that's terrifying. What's worse is taking the side of a foreign invader over your OWN people.  The fact is, that "spoiled, smart ass White boy" has EVERY right to be ANYWHERE in this country he chooses to be while the same cannot be said for Mexicans. 

And you have the nerve to call another American disingenuous? At least he's/she's not a poser, like YOU.


----------



## Ame®icano

Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.

In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.

In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.



More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.


----------



## Ame®icano

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
Click to expand...


Only misinformation here is coming from you.

Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.

*Naturalization Information*


----------



## badbob85037

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Please take back your Mexicans
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 319984
> 
> View attachment 319988


Once there was a town in California that had a bad Pigeon problem. You couldn't walk out of your house without getting dumped on. The mayor put an add in major news papers for anyone that could rid the town of these vermin.

Two days latter a man answered the add. He told the mayor as long as he was asked no questions it would be free or $100,000 if any questions were asked. The mayor agreed and met the man on the highest hill in town the next morning. The man pulled a blue bird from under his coat and released him. He took flight and as he flew around town pigeons followed him. When all were following him he flew out of town, returning alone a couple hours latter.

When the man showed up at town hall the mayor had a check for $100,000. The mayor handed him the check and said I just have to ask you one question. Do you have any blue Mexicans?

I also have one question. Do these democrats see this issue as they do the rest through a delusion?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
Click to expand...



Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.


----------



## Ame®icano

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
Click to expand...


"undocumented foreigners"

 You mean illegal aliens?

We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
Click to expand...


You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.


----------



## Ame®icano

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
Click to expand...


While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.

Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?


----------



## OKTexas

Gdjjr said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
> Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
> Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.
Click to expand...



Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
Click to expand...


You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*

The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.


----------



## Ame®icano

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
Click to expand...


I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you. 

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so. 

Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
Click to expand...


Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.

But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
"_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."









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

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




					thelawdictionary.org
				




NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.

“_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
> Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
> Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand.  Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.


----------



## Gdjjr

OKTexas said:


> Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.


LOL- I may be ignorant, but we're all born that way. Some, if not many, like yourself, are arrogant fools working on a PhD in STUPID-


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
> Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
> Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand.  Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.
Click to expand...



You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Gdjjr said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I may be ignorant, but we're all born that way. Some, if not many, like yourself, are arrogant fools working on a PhD in STUPID-
Click to expand...



No my PHD lies in "bullshit detection" and you're full of it.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
Click to expand...



You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
> Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
> Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand.  Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions.  You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass.  Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I may be ignorant, but we're all born that way. Some, if not many, like yourself, are arrogant fools working on a PhD in STUPID-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No my PHD lies in "bullshit detection" and you're full of it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Your meter broke a long time ago.  You seem to be all into assholes and shit.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
> Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
> Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand.  Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions.  You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass.  Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.
Click to expand...



Yet the only thing you've proven is how ignorant you really are.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
Click to expand...



And it says that, where?

.


----------



## Ame®icano

I removed previous quotes for easier navigation thru the post. I hope you don't mind. I'll address few of your points separately. 



Porter Rockwell said:


> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.



First of all, these are not "Trump's powers", presidents before him had them, and used them, therefore blaming Trump for something that was accepted by the Congress, and Supreme Court, is irrational. 

There are two provisions of the Constitution that make leaving immigration in the hands of the various states very problematic. The ""full faith and credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1) generally means that states must respect the public laws of another state, with an exception or two. Second is the "privileges and immunities" clause in Article IV of the Constitution (later interpreted in Corfield v. Coryell) that includes a “freedom of movement”. So, one state can let anyone in, vetted or unvetted, criminals or terrorists, sick or well, etc., that person must be welcomed everywhere.  If each state had their own immigration laws, regulations, and procedures, we would have complete chaos. States would all have different criteria for granting asylum, tourist and student visas, work and residency permits, voting rights, driving privileges... effectively splintering the country into fifty separate nations with their own distinct types of citizens, residents, and visitors. Movement and commerce between states would be hampered, national security would impossible to ensure, voting rights would significantly unbalanced, and many federal laws would be impossible to enforce. That is primarily reason for citizenship and immigration to be national issues, and in domain of Congress to regulate them.

There are certainly many of SCOTUS decisions that are unconstitutional, and we can talk about it elsewhere, but I don't the one you're referring to is one of them. 



Porter Rockwell said:


> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows: "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."



For your problem with staying focused on one topic, I recommend adderall. We're talking about immigration, and who has power over it. For the same reason, I'll skip over unrelated content.

I already explain my view in previous posts, so there is no reason to repeat it. I'll only add to it that the states legally exist within the framework of the US constitution, therefore the immigration and citizenship regulations are a federal responsibility. I suspect you just don't like that power is in Trump's hands now, and that you didn't complain when Barry was enforcing it while he was in the office.

As for your definition of "immigration", generally I agree with it. You probably just forgot that "coming into country" requires permission from the country that immigrant seek to move into. With that permission, you become an immigrant. Without that permission, you're not immigrant, but an illegal alien, who is breaking the law of the country with your unauthorized presence. 



Porter Rockwell said:


> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)



People coming here to engage in free market must have permission from the people who are living here under that free market already. You can't just drop in, compete for jobs, work for cash, avoid paying taxes, use the infrastructure built/paid for by citizens and immigrants, just because you want it. It doesn't work that way. 

In trying to bind the original thirteen states into one, more perfect union, the Constitution reserved to the national government rights to make treaties, impose tariffs, and to handle immigration. Since then Congress and federal statute has put more immigration authority under the President. Even so, many states and municipalities now individually are trying to pursue their own immigration policies. When Arizona tried to enforce federal law, they've been kicked in the ass by Barry and SCOTUS that they have no rights to do it. Well, what we need now is the same treatment for all states who are trying to go around federal immigration laws and give them great Supreme Court kick in the ass. Since SCOTUS doesn't set matters in motion, some other party must sue the states and municipalities first. That is the process we have and should be followed for all unconstitutional power grab, weather that is CommieCare, or Patriot Act, or stay-at-home orders, or whatever. 

Before you reply next time, remember... adderall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
> Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
> Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand.  Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions.  You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass.  Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the only thing you've proven is how ignorant you really are.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Dude, I'll match you for actual knowledge on this subject any day of the week.  You lost the debate when you had to resort to name calling and false assertions.  Not only am I *NOT* ignorant when it comes to this field of law, I challenge every swinging dick that disagrees with me to work in my office for a week and prove me wrong... and IF you can, I'll pay you $300 a day, come here and issue a public apology, and get my ass spanked by one of you budding keyboard commandos.  When can I expect to see your ugly mug?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


From that section of the Constitution you quoted:









						What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
					

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.




					www.thoughtco.com


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> I removed previous quotes for easier navigation thru the post. I hope you don't mind. I'll address few of your points separately.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, these are not "Trump's powers", presidents before him had them, and used them, therefore blaming Trump for something that was accepted by the Congress, and Supreme Court, is irrational.
> 
> There are two provisions of the Constitution that make leaving immigration in the hands of the various states very problematic. The ""full faith and credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1) generally means that states must respect the public laws of another state, with an exception or two. Second is the "privileges and immunities" clause in Article IV of the Constitution (later interpreted in Corfield v. Coryell) that includes a “freedom of movement”. So, one state can let anyone in, vetted or unvetted, criminals or terrorists, sick or well, etc., that person must be welcomed everywhere.  If each state had their own immigration laws, regulations, and procedures, we would have complete chaos. States would all have different criteria for granting asylum, tourist and student visas, work and residency permits, voting rights, driving privileges... effectively splintering the country into fifty separate nations with their own distinct types of citizens, residents, and visitors. Movement and commerce between states would be hampered, national security would impossible to ensure, voting rights would significantly unbalanced, and many federal laws would be impossible to enforce. That is primarily reason for citizenship and immigration to be national issues, and in domain of Congress to regulate them.
> 
> There are certainly many of SCOTUS decisions that are unconstitutional, and we can talk about it elsewhere, but I don't the one you're referring to is one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows: "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For your problem with staying focused on one topic, I recommend adderall. We're talking about immigration, and who has power over it. For the same reason, I'll skip over unrelated content.
> 
> I already explain my view in previous posts, so there is no reason to repeat it. I'll only add to it that the states legally exist within the framework of the US constitution, therefore the immigration and citizenship regulations are a federal responsibility. I suspect you just don't like that power is in Trump's hands now, and that you didn't complain when Barry was enforcing it while he was in the office.
> 
> As for your definition of "immigration", generally I agree with it. You probably just forgot that "coming into country" requires permission from the country that immigrant seek to move into. With that permission, you become an immigrant. Without that permission, you're not immigrant, but an illegal alien, who is breaking the law of the country with your unauthorized presence.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People coming here to engage in free market must have permission from the people who are living here under that free market already. You can't just drop in, compete for jobs, work for cash, avoid paying taxes, use the infrastructure built/paid for by citizens and immigrants, just because you want it. It doesn't work that way.
> 
> In trying to bind the original thirteen states into one, more perfect union, the Constitution reserved to the national government rights to make treaties, impose tariffs, and to handle immigration. Since then Congress and federal statute has put more immigration authority under the President. Even so, many states and municipalities now individually are trying to pursue their own immigration policies. When Arizona tried to enforce federal law, they've been kicked in the ass by Barry and SCOTUS that they have no rights to do it. Well, what we need now is the same treatment for all states who are trying to go around federal immigration laws and give them great Supreme Court kick in the ass. Since SCOTUS doesn't set matters in motion, some other party must sue the states and municipalities first. That is the process we have and should be followed for all unconstitutional power grab, weather that is CommieCare, or Patriot Act, or stay-at-home orders, or whatever.
> 
> Before you reply next time, remember... adderall.
Click to expand...



I do not respond to multi quotes.  They are posted by desperate people who have NO legitimate issue and after the first exchange other posters simply say TLDR.

Regardless of how much bandwidth you use, the federal government NEVER exercised control over foreigners unless they sought citizenship.  It was a states rights issue until every founder and framer was dead and buried.  Someone forgot to tell the men who ratified the Constitution of your asinine ideas.  And while we're at it, it was YOUR SIDE that introduced the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  And while it's obvious you cannot reply without reminding us of your drug habit, bear in mind that I don't do drugs and drug _"humor_" is sick - and only sick people would find it amusing.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
> Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
> Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand.  Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions.  You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass.  Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the only thing you've proven is how ignorant you really are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I'll match you for actual knowledge on this subject any day of the week.  You lost the debate when you had to resort to name calling and false assertions.  Not only am I *NOT* ignorant when it comes to this field of law, I challenge every swinging dick that disagrees with me to work in my office for a week and prove me wrong... and IF you can, I'll pay you $300 a day, come here and issue a public apology, and get my ass spanked by one of you budding keyboard commandos.  When can I expect to see your ugly mug?
Click to expand...



I don't have to go anywhere to prove you wrong, you're doing it all by yourself by arguing against more than a century of established law. People not knowledgeable of the topic might be impressed by your propaganda, me not so much. Here's a thought, get back to us when your case is schedule to be heard by the supremes.

.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
Click to expand...



I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
> Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
> Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand.  Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions.  You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass.  Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the only thing you've proven is how ignorant you really are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I'll match you for actual knowledge on this subject any day of the week.  You lost the debate when you had to resort to name calling and false assertions.  Not only am I *NOT* ignorant when it comes to this field of law, I challenge every swinging dick that disagrees with me to work in my office for a week and prove me wrong... and IF you can, I'll pay you $300 a day, come here and issue a public apology, and get my ass spanked by one of you budding keyboard commandos.  When can I expect to see your ugly mug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to go anywhere to prove you wrong, you're doing it all by yourself by arguing against more than a century of established law. People not knowledgeable of the topic might be impressed by your propaganda, me not so much. Here's a thought, get back to us when your case is schedule to be heard by the supremes.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You're blowing smoke and you know it.  Thank you for confirming it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.  I've worked on two legal teams that had cases won by the United States Supreme Court.  The right would hate it if I were a freaking liberal.  

The one thing your arrogant ass don't understand (other than your penchant for being consistently wrong) is that the solutions you support were the Democrats before you jumped onto the bandwagon with a lack of knowledge about our history and how political games are played.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
> Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
> Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand.  Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions.  You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass.  Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the only thing you've proven is how ignorant you really are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I'll match you for actual knowledge on this subject any day of the week.  You lost the debate when you had to resort to name calling and false assertions.  Not only am I *NOT* ignorant when it comes to this field of law, I challenge every swinging dick that disagrees with me to work in my office for a week and prove me wrong... and IF you can, I'll pay you $300 a day, come here and issue a public apology, and get my ass spanked by one of you budding keyboard commandos.  When can I expect to see your ugly mug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to go anywhere to prove you wrong, you're doing it all by yourself by arguing against more than a century of established law. People not knowledgeable of the topic might be impressed by your propaganda, me not so much. Here's a thought, get back to us when your case is schedule to be heard by the supremes.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're blowing smoke and you know it.  Thank you for confirming it.
Click to expand...






.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
Click to expand...



Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.

.


----------



## Ame®icano

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> I removed previous quotes for easier navigation thru the post. I hope you don't mind. I'll address few of your points separately.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, these are not "Trump's powers", presidents before him had them, and used them, therefore blaming Trump for something that was accepted by the Congress, and Supreme Court, is irrational.
> 
> There are two provisions of the Constitution that make leaving immigration in the hands of the various states very problematic. The ""full faith and credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1) generally means that states must respect the public laws of another state, with an exception or two. Second is the "privileges and immunities" clause in Article IV of the Constitution (later interpreted in Corfield v. Coryell) that includes a “freedom of movement”. So, one state can let anyone in, vetted or unvetted, criminals or terrorists, sick or well, etc., that person must be welcomed everywhere.  If each state had their own immigration laws, regulations, and procedures, we would have complete chaos. States would all have different criteria for granting asylum, tourist and student visas, work and residency permits, voting rights, driving privileges... effectively splintering the country into fifty separate nations with their own distinct types of citizens, residents, and visitors. Movement and commerce between states would be hampered, national security would impossible to ensure, voting rights would significantly unbalanced, and many federal laws would be impossible to enforce. That is primarily reason for citizenship and immigration to be national issues, and in domain of Congress to regulate them.
> 
> There are certainly many of SCOTUS decisions that are unconstitutional, and we can talk about it elsewhere, but I don't the one you're referring to is one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows: "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For your problem with staying focused on one topic, I recommend adderall. We're talking about immigration, and who has power over it. For the same reason, I'll skip over unrelated content.
> 
> I already explain my view in previous posts, so there is no reason to repeat it. I'll only add to it that the states legally exist within the framework of the US constitution, therefore the immigration and citizenship regulations are a federal responsibility. I suspect you just don't like that power is in Trump's hands now, and that you didn't complain when Barry was enforcing it while he was in the office.
> 
> As for your definition of "immigration", generally I agree with it. You probably just forgot that "coming into country" requires permission from the country that immigrant seek to move into. With that permission, you become an immigrant. Without that permission, you're not immigrant, but an illegal alien, who is breaking the law of the country with your unauthorized presence.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People coming here to engage in free market must have permission from the people who are living here under that free market already. You can't just drop in, compete for jobs, work for cash, avoid paying taxes, use the infrastructure built/paid for by citizens and immigrants, just because you want it. It doesn't work that way.
> 
> In trying to bind the original thirteen states into one, more perfect union, the Constitution reserved to the national government rights to make treaties, impose tariffs, and to handle immigration. Since then Congress and federal statute has put more immigration authority under the President. Even so, many states and municipalities now individually are trying to pursue their own immigration policies. When Arizona tried to enforce federal law, they've been kicked in the ass by Barry and SCOTUS that they have no rights to do it. Well, what we need now is the same treatment for all states who are trying to go around federal immigration laws and give them great Supreme Court kick in the ass. Since SCOTUS doesn't set matters in motion, some other party must sue the states and municipalities first. That is the process we have and should be followed for all unconstitutional power grab, weather that is CommieCare, or Patriot Act, or stay-at-home orders, or whatever.
> 
> Before you reply next time, remember... adderall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not respond to multi quotes.  They are posted by desperate people who have NO legitimate issue and after the first exchange other posters simply say TLDR.
> 
> Regardless of how much bandwidth you use, the federal government NEVER exercised control over foreigners unless they sought citizenship.  It was a states rights issue until every founder and framer was dead and buried.  Someone forgot to tell the men who ratified the Constitution of your asinine ideas.  And while we're at it, it was YOUR SIDE that introduced the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  And while it's obvious you cannot reply without reminding us of your drug habit, bear in mind that I don't do drugs and drug _"humor_" is sick - and only sick people would find it amusing.
Click to expand...


" I do not respond to multi quotes. "

I break it out for you, on a single subject, yet you still ranting about unrelated issues. You didn't read it? That's normal for people who cannot debate, and whose heads are stuck in their own asses.

Bye bye, loser.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American jobs, American workers are like the dodo. I've seen Taxi drivers, forklift operators, carpenters, plumbers, die builders...tradesmen vanish under the thumb of globalist that hire slipshod Mexican workers because..."profit uber ales".
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't- you've seen change, which is inevitable. It's a one constant in this world that you deal with or don't. The Mexicans I know and have known are hard workers. And I assure you, there are a lot more of them down here than there are in Colorado- I suspect you're just prejudice.
> Anecdote: My ex wife and I and another couple drove to a skiing trip in Colorado years ago- we stopped to eat somewhere in Colorado. I went to the restroom to pee, and on the wall, above the urinal was a hand written sign that stated: Texans go home and take a Mexican with you-
> Colorado has some pretty country, but the attitude is pretty sanctimonious - if not down right hypocritical since a lot of it's state income is from outsiders (including Texans) visiting- the Mexicans clean your hotel rooms and mow your yards and clean your filthy bathrooms- you have no room to talk so piously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you ignorant asshole, your experience doesn't invalidate that of anyone else. So just STFU.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your experience has to be relevant to the subject at hand.  Gdjjr has a lot of relevant experience and contacts you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're as stupid as that other ignorant asshole, you're making assumptions about someone you have no knowledge of, just like him. So feel free to FOAD.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone demonstrates a lack of knowledge by the absence of facts, I don't have to make any assumptions.  You keyboard commandos are pretty much the same when it comes to sniffing each other's ass.  Gutless and stupid - I understand you, not as ignorant as you want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the only thing you've proven is how ignorant you really are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I'll match you for actual knowledge on this subject any day of the week.  You lost the debate when you had to resort to name calling and false assertions.  Not only am I *NOT* ignorant when it comes to this field of law, I challenge every swinging dick that disagrees with me to work in my office for a week and prove me wrong... and IF you can, I'll pay you $300 a day, come here and issue a public apology, and get my ass spanked by one of you budding keyboard commandos.  When can I expect to see your ugly mug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to go anywhere to prove you wrong, you're doing it all by yourself by arguing against more than a century of established law. People not knowledgeable of the topic might be impressed by your propaganda, me not so much. Here's a thought, get back to us when your case is schedule to be heard by the supremes.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're blowing smoke and you know it.  Thank you for confirming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You blow smoke and somebody owes you a link?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:



So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.

Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> I removed previous quotes for easier navigation thru the post. I hope you don't mind. I'll address few of your points separately.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, these are not "Trump's powers", presidents before him had them, and used them, therefore blaming Trump for something that was accepted by the Congress, and Supreme Court, is irrational.
> 
> There are two provisions of the Constitution that make leaving immigration in the hands of the various states very problematic. The ""full faith and credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1) generally means that states must respect the public laws of another state, with an exception or two. Second is the "privileges and immunities" clause in Article IV of the Constitution (later interpreted in Corfield v. Coryell) that includes a “freedom of movement”. So, one state can let anyone in, vetted or unvetted, criminals or terrorists, sick or well, etc., that person must be welcomed everywhere.  If each state had their own immigration laws, regulations, and procedures, we would have complete chaos. States would all have different criteria for granting asylum, tourist and student visas, work and residency permits, voting rights, driving privileges... effectively splintering the country into fifty separate nations with their own distinct types of citizens, residents, and visitors. Movement and commerce between states would be hampered, national security would impossible to ensure, voting rights would significantly unbalanced, and many federal laws would be impossible to enforce. That is primarily reason for citizenship and immigration to be national issues, and in domain of Congress to regulate them.
> 
> There are certainly many of SCOTUS decisions that are unconstitutional, and we can talk about it elsewhere, but I don't the one you're referring to is one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.) When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows: "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For your problem with staying focused on one topic, I recommend adderall. We're talking about immigration, and who has power over it. For the same reason, I'll skip over unrelated content.
> 
> I already explain my view in previous posts, so there is no reason to repeat it. I'll only add to it that the states legally exist within the framework of the US constitution, therefore the immigration and citizenship regulations are a federal responsibility. I suspect you just don't like that power is in Trump's hands now, and that you didn't complain when Barry was enforcing it while he was in the office.
> 
> As for your definition of "immigration", generally I agree with it. You probably just forgot that "coming into country" requires permission from the country that immigrant seek to move into. With that permission, you become an immigrant. Without that permission, you're not immigrant, but an illegal alien, who is breaking the law of the country with your unauthorized presence.
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government. People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People coming here to engage in free market must have permission from the people who are living here under that free market already. You can't just drop in, compete for jobs, work for cash, avoid paying taxes, use the infrastructure built/paid for by citizens and immigrants, just because you want it. It doesn't work that way.
> 
> In trying to bind the original thirteen states into one, more perfect union, the Constitution reserved to the national government rights to make treaties, impose tariffs, and to handle immigration. Since then Congress and federal statute has put more immigration authority under the President. Even so, many states and municipalities now individually are trying to pursue their own immigration policies. When Arizona tried to enforce federal law, they've been kicked in the ass by Barry and SCOTUS that they have no rights to do it. Well, what we need now is the same treatment for all states who are trying to go around federal immigration laws and give them great Supreme Court kick in the ass. Since SCOTUS doesn't set matters in motion, some other party must sue the states and municipalities first. That is the process we have and should be followed for all unconstitutional power grab, weather that is CommieCare, or Patriot Act, or stay-at-home orders, or whatever.
> 
> Before you reply next time, remember... adderall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not respond to multi quotes.  They are posted by desperate people who have NO legitimate issue and after the first exchange other posters simply say TLDR.
> 
> Regardless of how much bandwidth you use, the federal government NEVER exercised control over foreigners unless they sought citizenship.  It was a states rights issue until every founder and framer was dead and buried.  Someone forgot to tell the men who ratified the Constitution of your asinine ideas.  And while we're at it, it was YOUR SIDE that introduced the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  And while it's obvious you cannot reply without reminding us of your drug habit, bear in mind that I don't do drugs and drug _"humor_" is sick - and only sick people would find it amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " I do not respond to multi quotes. "
> 
> I break it out for you, on a single subject, yet you still ranting about unrelated issues. You didn't read it? That's normal for people who cannot debate, and whose heads are stuck in their own asses.
> 
> Bye bye, loser.
Click to expand...


There is nothing to "_debate_."  If there were a "_debate_" you would have more than shotgun fallacies and ad hominems.  The biggest difference between you and I is that I have actually been *on* the front lines of this issue.  You haven't.


----------



## Gdjjr

All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- there are no caveats- Liberty and Justice for all- there are no caveats- 

Free market implies unencumbered trade and commerce. 
Regulating competition is encumbering. Restricting participation is encumbering.
Telling a trader what he can or can't trade and how it has to happen in encumbering.
Free markets do NOT exist. Highly Controlled markets do exist.
Who controls them? By what authority?

Rule of law is supposed to be our guiding light, not under the color of law.
Law is supposed to be blind, not blinded by.

Trump is merely a culmination of past narcissist. Exponential growth of blatant under the color of law acting.
Citizens are merely tools, or enemies, depending on how the wind is blowing in the District of Criminals- both are easily disposed of. 

Rules are made to be broken. Laws are meant to punish for criminal offense. 
What "rules" are citizens FORCED to abide by?
What "rules" do the critters in DC not abide by?

When cut everyone bleeds red. We are all born. Our Rights predate the DoI and the constitution.

That citizens are foolish enough to believe the lying bastards in DC and black robed idiots speaks to the improper education forced on them, which BOTH sides fully support, even though they don't have the authority in the rules granting them minor authority over citizens.

SMH-


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
Click to expand...



All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots.  Had a friend that taught me what I know.  His name was Hook Boutin.  Look him up on Wikipedia.   I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks.  You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law.  Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league.  Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties.  I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills.  That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on.  When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes.  Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals.  Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will *never* be in my league.  IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots.  Had a friend that taught me what I know.  His name was Hook Boutin.  Look him up on Wikipedia.   I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks.  You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law.  Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league.  Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties.  I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills.  That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on.  When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes.  Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals.  Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will *never* be in my league.  IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.
Click to expand...



Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots.  Had a friend that taught me what I know.  His name was Hook Boutin.  Look him up on Wikipedia.   I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks.  You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law.  Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league.  Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties.  I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills.  That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on.  When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes.  Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals.  Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will *never* be in my league.  IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you.  I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots.  You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots.  Had a friend that taught me what I know.  His name was Hook Boutin.  Look him up on Wikipedia.   I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks.  You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law.  Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league.  Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties.  I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills.  That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on.  When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes.  Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals.  Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will *never* be in my league.  IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you.  I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots.  You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.
Click to expand...



Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots.  Had a friend that taught me what I know.  His name was Hook Boutin.  Look him up on Wikipedia.   I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks.  You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law.  Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league.  Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties.  I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills.  That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on.  When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes.  Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals.  Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will *never* be in my league.  IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you.  I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots.  You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it.  Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM.  Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is.  I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.

Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion.  So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)  

What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "_solutions_" (if you can call regression a solution.)  The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way.  Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads.  You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world.  Your strategy works the same way.  My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great.  *IF *America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels.  It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.

Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion.  So, I've presented my view.  If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM.  Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously.  You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots.  Had a friend that taught me what I know.  His name was Hook Boutin.  Look him up on Wikipedia.   I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks.  You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law.  Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league.  Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties.  I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills.  That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on.  When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes.  Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals.  Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will *never* be in my league.  IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you.  I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots.  You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it.  Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM.  Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is.  I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.
> 
> Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion.  So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)
> 
> What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "_solutions_" (if you can call regression a solution.)  The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way.  Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads.  You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world.  Your strategy works the same way.  My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great.  *IF *America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels.  It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.
> 
> Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion.  So, I've presented my view.  If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM.  Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously.  You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.
Click to expand...



You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots.  Had a friend that taught me what I know.  His name was Hook Boutin.  Look him up on Wikipedia.   I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks.  You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law.  Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league.  Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties.  I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills.  That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on.  When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes.  Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals.  Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will *never* be in my league.  IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you.  I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots.  You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it.  Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM.  Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is.  I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.
> 
> Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion.  So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)
> 
> What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "_solutions_" (if you can call regression a solution.)  The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way.  Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads.  You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world.  Your strategy works the same way.  My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great.  *IF *America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels.  It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.
> 
> Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion.  So, I've presented my view.  If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM.  Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously.  You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What *YOU* fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act.  Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage.  Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots.  Had a friend that taught me what I know.  His name was Hook Boutin.  Look him up on Wikipedia.   I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks.  You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law.  Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league.  Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties.  I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills.  That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on.  When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes.  Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals.  Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will *never* be in my league.  IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you.  I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots.  You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it.  Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM.  Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is.  I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.
> 
> Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion.  So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)
> 
> What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "_solutions_" (if you can call regression a solution.)  The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way.  Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads.  You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world.  Your strategy works the same way.  My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great.  *IF *America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels.  It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.
> 
> Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion.  So, I've presented my view.  If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM.  Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously.  You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *YOU* fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act.  Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage.  Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.
Click to expand...



The supreme court has upheld our immigration laws, and I support enforcing them, to the letter. End of story. I also support ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens, regardless if the parents are here legally or illegally. The children of legal immigrants can be naturalized when their parent are.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots.  Had a friend that taught me what I know.  His name was Hook Boutin.  Look him up on Wikipedia.   I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks.  You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law.  Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league.  Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties.  I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills.  That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on.  When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes.  Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals.  Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will *never* be in my league.  IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you.  I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots.  You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it.  Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM.  Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is.  I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.
> 
> Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion.  So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)
> 
> What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "_solutions_" (if you can call regression a solution.)  The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way.  Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads.  You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world.  Your strategy works the same way.  My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great.  *IF *America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels.  It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.
> 
> Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion.  So, I've presented my view.  If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM.  Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously.  You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *YOU* fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act.  Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage.  Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court has upheld our immigration laws, and I support enforcing them, to the letter. End of story. I also support ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens, regardless if the parents are here legally or illegally. The children of legal immigrants can be naturalized when their parent are.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You are the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board.  You and I are the only two people reading this thread.  Surely you know that much.  But, for shits and giggles, let me give you a short history lesson:

“_A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means._”  Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810

  “_Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual._”   Thomas Jefferson

Not all questions regarding immigration have been asked of the United States Supreme Court AND one of the problems you have is that the high Court, constitutionally speaking, is only empowered to* interpret* the law.  *There is no provision for them to reinterpret the law*.  You, being unable to show that, are stuck with defending laws that were enacted solely to disenfranchise the white people, make them a minority in America, and destroy the Constitution.  So, the United States Supreme Court *reinterpreted* the Constitution to that end because the high Court is made up of lawyers that were endorsed by the American Bar Association (ABA.)   The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States. 

Now, had it not been for the United States Supreme Court *reinterpreting* the Constitution, you would not have birthright citizenship automatically being given to third worlders.  So, whether you are for or against it, the law cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment because you cannot get constitutionalists into the United States Supreme Court.  Besides, I am the last living constitutionalist.  Why you think white people should not have a say in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died to establish is your problem.  And I don't know what the Hell the difference is where a person is born if their objective is to overthrow the Constitution.  A foreigner with _"legal_" papers, like Bernie Sanders, is more of a threat than 50 broke ass Mexicans that are doing manual labor and not being able to pose a political threat to you.  But, you seem to live in your own little world.

So, if you weren't the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board, I wouldn't have to draw pictures for you to understand.  The *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment is your real enemy.  *Without* the 14th Amendment you would not have children automatically gaining U.S. citizenship AND who comes and goes within a state is the state's prerogative unless and until the guest seeks citizenship.  That means that the federal government cannot dictate who you do business with.  If you don't want to hire certain individuals, you don't have to.  If you don't want to sell to them, buy from them, or do business with them, you don't have to.  In other words, *you* get to make the decision as to who belongs in your neighborhood, not some bureaucrat 2000 miles away from you.  But, talking to you dumb asses that bought the Democrats kool aid is an exercise in futility.  One day, Trump is not going to be president and his Executive policies will die with his administration.  And then, the immigration laws (enacted by Democrats) will be used to grind you down and destroy every dumb ass that was too blind to understand the difference between citizenship and *unalienable* Rights.


----------



## Ame®icano

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots.  Had a friend that taught me what I know.  His name was Hook Boutin.  Look him up on Wikipedia.   I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks.  You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law.  Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league.  Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties.  I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills.  That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on.  When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes.  Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals.  Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will *never* be in my league.  IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you.  I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots.  You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it.  Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM.  Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is.  I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.
> 
> Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion.  So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)
> 
> What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "_solutions_" (if you can call regression a solution.)  The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way.  Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads.  You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world.  Your strategy works the same way.  My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great.  *IF *America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels.  It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.
> 
> Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion.  So, I've presented my view.  If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM.  Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously.  You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *YOU* fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act.  Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage.  Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court has upheld our immigration laws, and I support enforcing them, to the letter. End of story. I also support ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens, regardless if the parents are here legally or illegally. The children of legal immigrants can be naturalized when their parent are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board.  You and I are the only two people reading this thread.  Surely you know that much.  But, for shits and giggles, let me give you a short history lesson:
> 
> “_A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means._”  Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810
> 
> “_Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual._”   Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Not all questions regarding immigration have been asked of the United States Supreme Court AND one of the problems you have is that the high Court, constitutionally speaking, is only empowered to* interpret* the law.  *There is no provision for them to reinterpret the law*.  You, being unable to show that, are stuck with defending laws that were enacted solely to disenfranchise the white people, make them a minority in America, and destroy the Constitution.  So, the United States Supreme Court *reinterpreted* the Constitution to that end because the high Court is made up of lawyers that were endorsed by the American Bar Association (ABA.)   The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States.
> 
> Now, had it not been for the United States Supreme Court *reinterpreting* the Constitution, you would not have birthright citizenship automatically being given to third worlders.  So, whether you are for or against it, the law cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment because you cannot get constitutionalists into the United States Supreme Court.  Besides, I am the last living constitutionalist.  Why you think white people should not have a say in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died to establish is your problem.  And I don't know what the Hell the difference is where a person is born if their objective is to overthrow the Constitution.  A foreigner with _"legal_" papers, like Bernie Sanders, is more of a threat than 50 broke ass Mexicans that are doing manual labor and not being able to pose a political threat to you.  But, you seem to live in your own little world.
> 
> So, if you weren't the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board, I wouldn't have to draw pictures for you to understand.  The *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment is your real enemy.  *Without* the 14th Amendment you would not have children automatically gaining U.S. citizenship AND who comes and goes within a state is the state's prerogative unless and until the guest seeks citizenship.  That means that the federal government cannot dictate who you do business with.  If you don't want to hire certain individuals, you don't have to.  If you don't want to sell to them, buy from them, or do business with them, you don't have to.  In other words, *you* get to make the decision as to who belongs in your neighborhood, not some bureaucrat 2000 miles away from you.  But, talking to you dumb asses that bought the Democrats kool aid is an exercise in futility.  One day, Trump is not going to be president and his Executive policies will die with his administration.  And then, the immigration laws (enacted by Democrats) will be used to grind you down and destroy every dumb ass that was too blind to understand the difference between citizenship and *unalienable* Rights.
Click to expand...


Not really. I am still reading this thread. I just refuse to debate with total moron that you are.

Let's cut the chase, is SCOTUS Roe v. Wade decision constitutional?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots.  Had a friend that taught me what I know.  His name was Hook Boutin.  Look him up on Wikipedia.   I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks.  You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law.  Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league.  Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties.  I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills.  That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on.  When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes.  Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals.  Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will *never* be in my league.  IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you.  I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots.  You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it.  Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM.  Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is.  I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.
> 
> Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion.  So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)
> 
> What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "_solutions_" (if you can call regression a solution.)  The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way.  Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads.  You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world.  Your strategy works the same way.  My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great.  *IF *America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels.  It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.
> 
> Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion.  So, I've presented my view.  If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM.  Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously.  You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *YOU* fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act.  Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage.  Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court has upheld our immigration laws, and I support enforcing them, to the letter. End of story. I also support ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens, regardless if the parents are here legally or illegally. The children of legal immigrants can be naturalized when their parent are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board.  You and I are the only two people reading this thread.  Surely you know that much.  But, for shits and giggles, let me give you a short history lesson:
> 
> “_A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means._”  Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810
> 
> “_Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual._”   Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Not all questions regarding immigration have been asked of the United States Supreme Court AND one of the problems you have is that the high Court, constitutionally speaking, is only empowered to* interpret* the law.  *There is no provision for them to reinterpret the law*.  You, being unable to show that, are stuck with defending laws that were enacted solely to disenfranchise the white people, make them a minority in America, and destroy the Constitution.  So, the United States Supreme Court *reinterpreted* the Constitution to that end because the high Court is made up of lawyers that were endorsed by the American Bar Association (ABA.)   The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States.
> 
> Now, had it not been for the United States Supreme Court *reinterpreting* the Constitution, you would not have birthright citizenship automatically being given to third worlders.  So, whether you are for or against it, the law cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment because you cannot get constitutionalists into the United States Supreme Court.  Besides, I am the last living constitutionalist.  Why you think white people should not have a say in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died to establish is your problem.  And I don't know what the Hell the difference is where a person is born if their objective is to overthrow the Constitution.  A foreigner with _"legal_" papers, like Bernie Sanders, is more of a threat than 50 broke ass Mexicans that are doing manual labor and not being able to pose a political threat to you.  But, you seem to live in your own little world.
> 
> So, if you weren't the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board, I wouldn't have to draw pictures for you to understand.  The *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment is your real enemy.  *Without* the 14th Amendment you would not have children automatically gaining U.S. citizenship AND who comes and goes within a state is the state's prerogative unless and until the guest seeks citizenship.  That means that the federal government cannot dictate who you do business with.  If you don't want to hire certain individuals, you don't have to.  If you don't want to sell to them, buy from them, or do business with them, you don't have to.  In other words, *you* get to make the decision as to who belongs in your neighborhood, not some bureaucrat 2000 miles away from you.  But, talking to you dumb asses that bought the Democrats kool aid is an exercise in futility.  One day, Trump is not going to be president and his Executive policies will die with his administration.  And then, the immigration laws (enacted by Democrats) will be used to grind you down and destroy every dumb ass that was too blind to understand the difference between citizenship and *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. I am still reading this thread. I just refuse to debate with total moron that you are.
> 
> Let's cut the chase, is SCOTUS Roe v. Wade decision constitutional?
Click to expand...


If you have is name calling, then you are projecting.  I'll tell you the bottom line. You might talk your shit in public, but you are NOT a real activist because the first time you went to someone face to face with that chickenshit, you would not like it.

My personal view is that the decision was unconstitutional.  I've never studied the reasoning so, it would be hard to say what would or would not have made a difference.  Unless the science has changed OR something new has taken place, while I am against abortion, I would be against the United States Supreme Court now *reinterpreting* the law to my benefit.  You'll find that I'm pretty damn consistent when I say it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.

Trump's handpicked United States Supreme Court may rehear the same issues and *reintrepret* the law.  If so, I would oppose that due to the method.  They are not legislators.  If we want the law changed, do it through your legislators.  Now, have you ever been a victim of a law that you followed and the United States Supreme Court *reinterpreted* the law and made something you had already done legally, a crime afterward for which you can be charged with?


----------



## OKTexas

Porter Rockwell said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots.  Had a friend that taught me what I know.  His name was Hook Boutin.  Look him up on Wikipedia.   I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks.  You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law.  Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league.  Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties.  I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills.  That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on.  When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes.  Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals.  Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will *never* be in my league.  IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you.  I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots.  You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it.  Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM.  Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is.  I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.
> 
> Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion.  So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)
> 
> What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "_solutions_" (if you can call regression a solution.)  The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way.  Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads.  You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world.  Your strategy works the same way.  My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great.  *IF *America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels.  It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.
> 
> Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion.  So, I've presented my view.  If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM.  Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously.  You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *YOU* fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act.  Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage.  Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court has upheld our immigration laws, and I support enforcing them, to the letter. End of story. I also support ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens, regardless if the parents are here legally or illegally. The children of legal immigrants can be naturalized when their parent are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board.  You and I are the only two people reading this thread.  Surely you know that much.  But, for shits and giggles, let me give you a short history lesson:
> 
> “_A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means._”  Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810
> 
> “_Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual._”   Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Not all questions regarding immigration have been asked of the United States Supreme Court AND one of the problems you have is that the high Court, constitutionally speaking, is only empowered to* interpret* the law.  *There is no provision for them to reinterpret the law*.  You, being unable to show that, are stuck with defending laws that were enacted solely to disenfranchise the white people, make them a minority in America, and destroy the Constitution.  So, the United States Supreme Court *reinterpreted* the Constitution to that end because the high Court is made up of lawyers that were endorsed by the American Bar Association (ABA.)   The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States.
> 
> Now, had it not been for the United States Supreme Court *reinterpreting* the Constitution, you would not have birthright citizenship automatically being given to third worlders.  So, whether you are for or against it, the law cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment because you cannot get constitutionalists into the United States Supreme Court.  Besides, I am the last living constitutionalist.  Why you think white people should not have a say in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died to establish is your problem.  And I don't know what the Hell the difference is where a person is born if their objective is to overthrow the Constitution.  A foreigner with _"legal_" papers, like Bernie Sanders, is more of a threat than 50 broke ass Mexicans that are doing manual labor and not being able to pose a political threat to you.  But, you seem to live in your own little world.
> 
> So, if you weren't the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board, I wouldn't have to draw pictures for you to understand.  The *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment is your real enemy.  *Without* the 14th Amendment you would not have children automatically gaining U.S. citizenship AND who comes and goes within a state is the state's prerogative unless and until the guest seeks citizenship.  That means that the federal government cannot dictate who you do business with.  If you don't want to hire certain individuals, you don't have to.  If you don't want to sell to them, buy from them, or do business with them, you don't have to.  In other words, *you* get to make the decision as to who belongs in your neighborhood, not some bureaucrat 2000 miles away from you.  But, talking to you dumb asses that bought the Democrats kool aid is an exercise in futility.  One day, Trump is not going to be president and his Executive policies will die with his administration.  And then, the immigration laws (enacted by Democrats) will be used to grind you down and destroy every dumb ass that was too blind to understand the difference between citizenship and *unalienable* Rights.
Click to expand...



Your ignorance is showing again, courts have an obligation to "apply" the law, they have no authority under article 3 to interpret anything.

.


----------



## Ame®icano

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. I am still reading this thread. I just refuse to debate with total moron that you are.
> 
> Let's cut the chase, is SCOTUS Roe v. Wade decision constitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have is name calling, then you are projecting.  I'll tell you the bottom line. You might talk your shit in public, but you are NOT a real activist because the first time you went to someone face to face with that chickenshit, you would not like it.
> 
> My personal view is that the decision was unconstitutional.  I've never studied the reasoning so, it would be hard to say what would or would not have made a difference.  Unless the science has changed OR something new has taken place, while I am against abortion, I would be against the United States Supreme Court now *reinterpreting* the law to my benefit.  You'll find that I'm pretty damn consistent when I say it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.
> 
> Trump's handpicked United States Supreme Court may rehear the same issues and *reintrepret* the law.  If so, I would oppose that due to the method.  They are not legislators.  If we want the law changed, do it through your legislators.  Now, have you ever been a victim of a law that you followed and the United States Supreme Court *reinterpreted* the law and made something you had already done legally, a crime afterward for which you can be charged with?
Click to expand...


You are the first one to throw the insult (Check your post #372), I am only returning the favor.

Although I said I am done with you, I kept reading this thread just to check how far your stupidity can reach.

No, I am not an activist, and I don't have an ideology. What I do have is a common sense.

Let's discuss your post, shall we? I do agree that Roe v. Wade decision is unconstitutional, and should be overturned, just like, for example, Dred Scott was overturned. Scott held that a runaway slave was the property of its owner and the state he ran to had to acknowledge the law of the slave state and return him. Harrowing to consider, but times have changed. Dred Scott was overturned by events.

Roe will likely be overturned by state laws regulating medical practices and procedures, perhaps with criminal consequences. Iowa’s knew law makes it unlawful to do an abortion under circumstances that include the heartbeat of the fetus being detected. New times, new technology. Roe relied in part on a woman’s right to privacy and to choose to kill the fetus (men have no such unilateral right and their unilateral abandonment can result in 18 years of support obligations). Nonetheless the woman’s right was not unlimited and the right of the unborn was not at issue so states can regulate how they will permit fetus killing. But here is the catch...

The only thing that can be declared unconstitutional is a law or action by a government agency. This is because the constitution declares limits on what the government can do, and then the Supreme Court makes sure those limits are adhered too. Roe v. Wade however, is not a law or government agency action that the supreme court would declare unconstitutional, but is a decision the court put out, which is how they tell us what the constitution means, that said that the government could not make it illegal to get an abortion.  The Supreme Court is not bound to the decisions they make however, they have the power to change what they’ve said in the past and declare things they said we’re allowed under the constitution not allowed, and to declare things they said were constitutional unconstitutional.

That is the reason why I ask you this question that is completely unrelated to the discussion about immigration.  A Supreme Court decision cannot generally be unconstitutional. The court itself decided, in Marbury v Madison, via some legal magic, that it has the power to determine what is and is not constitutional, and even if Supreme Court's decision is overturned, there’s no grounds on which a future court might find that Court exceeded its powers. What’s at question is not whether the Supreme Court acted constitutionally in deciding Roe v. Wade, or Dred Scott, or Immigration issue, but whether the case was correctly decided.

Therefore, federal immigration laws ARE laws of the land, weather you like it or not. And if you think they're unconstitutional, sue the federal government, and try to make your case up to the SCOTUS, and test your activist knowledge in front of top justices of the land. Just like States today are arguing about constitutionality of CommieCare, or State's abortion laws, or gun control laws, by challenging the laws, you make your case. Either that, or like every other Commie, force them into submission.

I wont be replying to you after this, regardless of what you say. No point debating with you, due to your ideological insanity.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OKTexas said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely observing population growth around 2008 when Barry got into office and comparing it to now you can see we went from about 2.6~ million growth per year to less than 1 million right now. This means we're removing quite a few migrants registered with USCIS. Keeping in mind as well there are other factors (migrants don't exist in a vacuum, there are other migrants relying on them) and the fact temporary residents are not factored into the population at all, the USA is actually removing people at a rapid pace.
> 
> In particular in 2018 we only had around 400K deportations, but it skyrocketed to about 1 million during 2019 as the engines of the deportation force put into place during the first two years finally got underway. People forget that Barry was only serving deportation orders put out for people arrested when Bush was president, since it takes a few years to get a trial. At the same time he dismantled the entire ICE force's ability to actually deport people beginning in 2009, which is why after 2013 the number of deportations drops off steeply as DAPA and DACA protected 1/3 of illegals from deportation. Trump's removal of these protections have immensely increased arrests.
> 
> In addition the number of illegals requesting to return home rather than be deported has increased exponentially under Trump, since they know they're fucked and controls against illegals who don't have forged residence documents have gotten much steeper while factory growth in countries like Mexico means it makes more sense for them to just fuck off- the USA isn't the goldmine it was 30 years ago and Mexico isn't as much of a "shithole". Now Guatemala is Mexico's Mexico and Mexicans are ree-ing because the USA won't let 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans cross into the USA from Mexico, sticking them with 1 million Guatemalans and Nicaraguans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation... The United States is currently naturalizing more than 750,000 people per year.  The so - called _"illegals_" will become citizens and if you stand in the way of the free enterprise system, they will soon be in complete control.  You people that are obsessed with this mythical "_illegal alien_" B.S. need to study the issue if you want to retain your Rights for the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only misinformation here is coming from you.
> 
> Illegals cannot be naturalized, since they're in the country illegally. Naturalization process is reserved for immigrants who have been permanent residents for at least five years, and comply with several eligibility requirements. Here is a little homework for you to study. Come back when you learn the lesson.
> 
> *Naturalization Information*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1986 and 2001 there were approximately SEVEN amnesty periods whereby undocumented foreigners could become citizens.  The facts kind of contradict what you are alleging.  I worked in immigration law for several years and have forgotten more than you are capable of learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "undocumented foreigners"
> 
> You mean illegal aliens?
> 
> We're talking about current laws on books, not about your wish list. Without new immigration law passed by the Congress and signed by President, there is no amnesty, or naturalization, current laws are in force. If there are questions about current laws, refer to the link in my previous post. With your "expertise in immigration law", I sure hope you wont have problem finding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The current immigration laws on the books were put there by the Democrats with the sole purpose of diluting the white vote and making whites a minority.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in who an individual state does or does not allow into its borders.  Maybe when *your* stupid white ass is called a domestic terrorist or an enemy combatant or illegal gun owner, etc. and *you* are presumed guilty; pursued without Due Process, *you* will get it: undocumented foreigner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress an enumerated power to restrict immigration, that authority is inherent in the structure of the Constitution or in the very nature of government. Since Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform rule of naturalization”, therefore Federal government would have inherent power over immigration. Also, dunce... Congress have the power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations”, and every illegal alien is subject to that punishment. An "expert" such as yourself, should've heard about plenary power doctrine, and if not, I'll get my kid crayons and will draw it for you.
> 
> Beside Congress, who define laws of the nation,  Article II of the Constitution gives all “executive” power to the president, meaning it gives the president the authority to wield any power that is inherent to the nature of the “executive.” Presumably that concept includes power over immigration too. Since you're an "expert" who "worked in immigration law", you should know that, but I wouldn't bet my white ass on it. By the way, what color of my ass has to do with your shrieking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been researching my old posts.  If not for the "_plenary power_" doctrine, there would be no federal immigration laws.  It's funny how the federal courts waited until 1875 to declare such a power *AND NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES THERE EXIST ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BESTOW UPON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ANY POWERS WHATSOEVER.*
> 
> The fact that STATES had state immigration officials from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until all the founders and framers were dead and buried - and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment passed testifies to the fact that you are doing little more than trying to justify National Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what old post you are referring to, and I believe this is my first interaction with you.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law. States cannot and should not regulate their own immigration for a simple reason of commerce. Once admitted into United States, people can move freely, therefore if let's say Arizona let someone in, that someone can move to another state without oversight.  Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, and federal laws are preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so.
> 
> Essentially, we are agreeing on technicalities. Only problem is that you are talking about "what it was", and I am talking about "what is now". Under current laws, Trump is completely within his powers in regards of immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's powers are based upon an unconstitutional act by the United States Supreme Court.  This is not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.  The reality is, you cannot criminalize Liberty.  You are conflating Liberty with citizenship.  And I realize that regardless of my experience, you have more intelligence, inside info, insight, experience and will not benefit off of my words.
> 
> But, one day it might be your ass that gets descended upon by an army of feds who do not acknowledge your *unalienable* Rights (a fringe benefit of the Republicans who nullified the Bill of Rights.)  When they beat you within an inch of your life, lock you up for days incommunicado, and threaten you, it is my fervent prayer that you live to tell about it so that you get what the point I'm trying to make to you is. A few years entangled in court actions might help you understand the issue beyond your personal prejudices as well.   Immigration is citizenship.  according to Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used in the legal community) immigration is defined as follows:
> "_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> 
> Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelawdictionary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY is within their *authority* to commit unconstitutional acts.  A robber has the power to take your money at gunpoint, but he lacks the *authority*.  Ditto for this out of control government.  People coming here to engage in the free market, not seeking permanent residence are not beholden to the federal government under a de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founders.  In 1790 (less than six months after the ratification of the Constitution) Congress passed the first Naturalization Law.  It limited citizenship to free white persons.  Still, people from all over the globe came here to engage in the free market.  Why you believe that people have to become citizens or put under federal control and their Liberty limited is beyond me.  IF employers were allowed to hire the employee of their choosing, I think a lot of communities would become predominantly white and the multicultural districts would choke themselves to death.   That is what our country's history shows.  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from your own stupidity.
> 
> “_An avidity to punish is *always dangerous to liberty*. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_.” (Thomas Paine, founding father)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, again. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, gives congress the authority to decide who may be admitted entry into the US and under what conditions, after 1808.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That applies to slaves, not guest workers dumb ass.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it says that, where?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From that section of the Constitution you quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted one specific clause, where the prohibition on congressional action expired in 1808. BTW oh ignorant one, you might want to learn the definition of a "guest".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aware of it.  Are you?  I don't hire, do business with, or sell to anyone I don't want to.  If someone else has a different philosophy, it's theirs to pursue.  Laws that inhibit Liberty are unenforceable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the looters have the same attitude. Run along commie, your ignorance in boring the hell out of me.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck commie dick.  It's you buying into their solutions.  Let's begin educating your dumb ass.  Here you are as a democrat:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how do you suppose* you* ended up supporting the guy who gave us National ID *AND* the so - called "_Pariot Act?_" How did your man Trump end up sounding like his golf playing buddy, Bill Clinton?   You want to say shit to me you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face.  You realize you cannot prevail in a real court so you pass on the opportunity to school me at $300 a day... and let's face it, if you made anywhere close to that you sure as Hell wouldn't be initiating pissing matches on the Internet with people you'd piss in your pants if you had to face them in person.  You can talk all the shit you like, pal, but at the end of the day honest posters are going to walk away and wonder who you're trying to convince... me?  Or* you*?  Since you've already tapped out, we both know the answer there.  The rest of your posts will be you blowing smoke up our ass and trying to talk big.
> 
> Unlike you I manned the border as civilian militia.  I've been IN court; I've worked all sides of the issue and the reason you want to make me an enemy is due to the simple fact that I don't agree with your solutions.  You have your head stuck up the ass of the most divisive president in U.S. history and you keep being on the side that is dividing the forces AND backing losing solutions.  Let me make a prediction for you:  Within the next five years, you will have two choices: an internal war or total capitulation to the left.  I've already shown that you personally won't be on the front lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that and you're still boring as hell, I wouldn't watch a TV show I didn't like for 300 a day. And my vote is to kill a commie for mommie. BTW I spent 22  years of my life in uniform to give you the right to be ignorant, that would include going to war. Tell the class what 2 way rifle range you served on. I may be old now, but I can still shoot.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's supposed to be a threat, it didn't take me 22 years to learn how to make moa shots.  Had a friend that taught me what I know.  His name was Hook Boutin.  Look him up on Wikipedia.   I put my time in to insure your right to be as dumb as a box of rocks.  You might want to think about limiting your comments to soldiering instead of law.  Don't shit yourself, on immigration law, you are NOT in my league.  Insofar as patriotism - I've faced bullets, beatings, court actions, being lied to, lied about, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money and have my life on the line numerous times in defense of constitutional Liberties.  I've spent more time in think tanks than you've spent honing your rifle skills.  That, my good man, is something you can bet your ass on.  When it comes to political / legal strategies, my record will speak volumes.  Not bragging - just fact... on this particular issue I have no superiors and damn few equals.  Blow smoke all you want, but you tapped out, and you will *never* be in my league.  IF you quit banging your keyboard and become an activist with your strategies, people that follow you are headed to Hell or a jail cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little commie, I don't make threats. If you commies try to take this country I'll defend her against all enemies. What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. You don't like it, tough shit.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anybody on this board is a communist, it is you.  I believe they referred to people like you as useful idiots.  You don't like it because nobody has to obey unconstitutional laws, then go do what you do best - suck a communist dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, deflection, who'd a thunk? LMAO
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you seem to be extremely good at it.  Look dude, if you have a personal problem with me, take it up in PM.  Nobody gives a fuck what your Section 8 mental problem is.  I can better accommodate you in a PM if you have a personal issue with me.
> 
> Your janitor job of 22 years has not prepared you to even be IN this discussion.  So maybe it's time you sucked it up (BTW I heard if you had as many on you as you have had in you, you'd look like a penis porcupine.)
> 
> What we have in America today are people rallying around Donald Trump, who is regurgitating Bill Clinton's old class warfare "_solutions_" (if you can call regression a solution.)  The problem continues to get worse with each passing presidential administration because it was planned that way.  Those who think they can save America by criminalizing Liberty should think about all the pot-heads.  You had a sufficient number of them that resisted and now we are the drug capital of the world.  Your strategy works the same way.  My plan is to eliminate laws until we are back to the time when America was great.  *IF *America ever were great, it is not because misguided idiots embraced the Democrats immigration laws or they thought a wall would save America when most undocumented foreigners came in via proper channels.  It was because at some point we were masters of our destiny.
> 
> Now, I don't mind you sticking your lips to the Democrats ass and trying to pretend you're some kind of hero, but you are not educated enough to be in this discussion.  So, I've presented my view.  If you have a personal issue, you really should take it to PM.  Then again, you chickenshit kids that live in mommy's basement, smoking dope think it's funny to make an ass out of yourself anonymously.  You don't have any brains and you don't have any balls... and it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should be happy this board in anonymous, otherwise everyone in the world would know exactly what an ignorant ass you really are. This is reality: What you seem to fail to realize is the there are laws on the books, and it's incumbent on executives at every level of government to make sure those laws are enforced. But hey, you commies tend to live in your own fantasy land. Carry on commie.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What *YOU* fail to realize is that even the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act.  Those laws that were enacted in order to dilute the white vote and make white people a minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty are an outrage.  Your support of such laws and the war of genocide against the white people in this country is despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court has upheld our immigration laws, and I support enforcing them, to the letter. End of story. I also support ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens, regardless if the parents are here legally or illegally. The children of legal immigrants can be naturalized when their parent are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board.  You and I are the only two people reading this thread.  Surely you know that much.  But, for shits and giggles, let me give you a short history lesson:
> 
> “_A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means._”  Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810
> 
> “_Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual._”   Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Not all questions regarding immigration have been asked of the United States Supreme Court AND one of the problems you have is that the high Court, constitutionally speaking, is only empowered to* interpret* the law.  *There is no provision for them to reinterpret the law*.  You, being unable to show that, are stuck with defending laws that were enacted solely to disenfranchise the white people, make them a minority in America, and destroy the Constitution.  So, the United States Supreme Court *reinterpreted* the Constitution to that end because the high Court is made up of lawyers that were endorsed by the American Bar Association (ABA.)   The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States.
> 
> Now, had it not been for the United States Supreme Court *reinterpreting* the Constitution, you would not have birthright citizenship automatically being given to third worlders.  So, whether you are for or against it, the law cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment because you cannot get constitutionalists into the United States Supreme Court.  Besides, I am the last living constitutionalist.  Why you think white people should not have a say in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died to establish is your problem.  And I don't know what the Hell the difference is where a person is born if their objective is to overthrow the Constitution.  A foreigner with _"legal_" papers, like Bernie Sanders, is more of a threat than 50 broke ass Mexicans that are doing manual labor and not being able to pose a political threat to you.  But, you seem to live in your own little world.
> 
> So, if you weren't the dumbest fuck to ever post on this board, I wouldn't have to draw pictures for you to understand.  The *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment is your real enemy.  *Without* the 14th Amendment you would not have children automatically gaining U.S. citizenship AND who comes and goes within a state is the state's prerogative unless and until the guest seeks citizenship.  That means that the federal government cannot dictate who you do business with.  If you don't want to hire certain individuals, you don't have to.  If you don't want to sell to them, buy from them, or do business with them, you don't have to.  In other words, *you* get to make the decision as to who belongs in your neighborhood, not some bureaucrat 2000 miles away from you.  But, talking to you dumb asses that bought the Democrats kool aid is an exercise in futility.  One day, Trump is not going to be president and his Executive policies will die with his administration.  And then, the immigration laws (enacted by Democrats) will be used to grind you down and destroy every dumb ass that was too blind to understand the difference between citizenship and *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is showing again, courts have an obligation to "apply" the law, they have no authority under article 3 to interpret anything.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


My ignorance?  Let's ask the federal government:

"_Federal courts enjoy the sole power to* interpret the law, *determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases_."









						The Judicial Branch | The White House
					

Where the Executive and Legislative branches are elected by the people, members of the Judicial Branch are appointed by the President and confirmed by the




					www.whitehouse.gov
				



.

Let's ask the United States Supreme Court right from their own website:

"_EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and* interpreter of the Constitution*_."



			The Court and Constitutional Interpretation
		


How about another government website about how our federal court work:

"_Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts* interpret* and apply the law to resolve disputes_..."



			https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/understanding-federal-courts.pdf
		


IF you had gone to law school as I did, they would have taught you:

"_The power to* interpret the law *of the United States will be held by the *U.S. Supreme Court*, and the lower federal courts_." 






						What Does Article III Say? | The Judicial Learning Center
					

Brought to you by the Judicial Learning Center, St. Louis. Understand the powers given to the Federal Courts in the U.S. Constitution. Common Core Literacy in social studies.




					judiciallearningcenter.org
				




USHistory.org is a relatively safe place from which to get an educated opinion of the subject.  They state:

"_The federal courts' most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to *interpret* the Constitution_." 



			The Power of the Federal Courts [ushistory.org]
		


Abbe Gluck was an Associate Professor of Yale Law School when he wrote this:

"_But the creation of federal common law remains discouraged, thanks to Erie's continuing vitality and the durahility of the notion that Erie requires federal common law making to he "limited" and "restricted."^ As a result, federal courts have spent the last century engaged in an under-the-radar enterprise of fashioning and appl5dng what are arguahly hundreds of federal common law doctrines to questions of *federal statutory interpretation,* without acknowledging that they are doing so and without explaining how their actions fit into the Erie paradigm_."


			https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5709&context=fss_papers
		


How about Wikipedia?  Is that an acceptable source for you?  They say:

*"Judicial interpretation* refers to different ways that the judiciary uses to interpret the law,..." 









						Judicial interpretation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The American Bar Association accredits law schools and serves as the de facto vetting organization for federal judges and United States Supreme Court Justices:

"On October 13, 1932, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes addressed the crowd that gathered to watch the laying of the cornerstone for the building that would house the Supreme Court of the United States. “The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith,” he said. *Our nation has entrusted the Court with interpreting*—and some might say protecting—our governing document, the United States Constitution,..." 









						Is Constitutional Law, Law?
					

Constitutional interpretation is one of the most high-profile aspects of the Court’s docket, at least in terms of news cycles and public opinion at large. The Court’s power to interpret our Constitution is critical to keeping the faith in our governing system alive. And with an ever-increasing...




					www.americanbar.org
				




The unconstitutional way the United States Supreme Court operates has always been a point of contention in the legal community and I have voiced my opinion from legislating from the bench.  You'd do well to read this:



			https://www.seattlelwv.org/uploads/1/1/7/8/117877553/role.pdf
		










						What Is 'Judicial Activism'?
					

A shopworn phrase that has outlived its usefulness, James Taranto answers.




					www.wsj.com
				




The "_conservative_" position is that judicial activism is unconstitutional.  And your dumb ass is calling me ignorant for exposing judicial activism?  Are you an idiot or a communist?   Let me tell you something tough guy.  While you spent 22 years being either a janitor or a cook (whichever it was), I spent nearly TWICE that in the political and legal arena.  I've been in court 36 times to date and never lost nor got overturned on appeal.  Most cases are settled before going that far, but that is a sufficient number of times IN a courtroom to establish the fact that I know my way around.  

On the issue of immigration law, I spent SIX years working in it... defense side, prosecution side, expert witness, working with immigrants to pass the citizenship test, testifying about immigration matters before various government bodies and non-profit organizations, working in think tanks (the first one was working for John Tanton who founded and financed FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) and NumbersUSA - a total of about 12 anti-immigrant non-profit organizations.  I've manned the border as civilian militia and spent way too many years trying to get dumb mother fuckers like you to understand *WHY* you're losing the battle.  And homeboy, if you don't know the counter-argument to the bullshit you spew and / or you don't know who is behind your talking points, then you STILL are in no position to be in any debate with me.  Come back again when you want another ass spanking.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Ame®icano said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. I am still reading this thread. I just refuse to debate with total moron that you are.
> 
> Let's cut the chase, is SCOTUS Roe v. Wade decision constitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have is name calling, then you are projecting.  I'll tell you the bottom line. You might talk your shit in public, but you are NOT a real activist because the first time you went to someone face to face with that chickenshit, you would not like it.
> 
> My personal view is that the decision was unconstitutional.  I've never studied the reasoning so, it would be hard to say what would or would not have made a difference.  Unless the science has changed OR something new has taken place, while I am against abortion, I would be against the United States Supreme Court now *reinterpreting* the law to my benefit.  You'll find that I'm pretty damn consistent when I say it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.
> 
> Trump's handpicked United States Supreme Court may rehear the same issues and *reintrepret* the law.  If so, I would oppose that due to the method.  They are not legislators.  If we want the law changed, do it through your legislators.  Now, have you ever been a victim of a law that you followed and the United States Supreme Court *reinterpreted* the law and made something you had already done legally, a crime afterward for which you can be charged with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the first one to throw the insult (Check your post #372), I am only returning the favor.
> 
> Although I said I am done with you, I kept reading this thread just to check how far your stupidity can reach.
> 
> No, I am not an activist, and I don't have an ideology. What I do have is a common sense.
> 
> Let's discuss your post, shall we? I do agree that Roe v. Wade decision is unconstitutional, and should be overturned, just like, for example, Dred Scott was overturned. Scott held that a runaway slave was the property of its owner and the state he ran to had to acknowledge the law of the slave state and return him. Harrowing to consider, but times have changed. Dred Scott was overturned by events.
> 
> Roe will likely be overturned by state laws regulating medical practices and procedures, perhaps with criminal consequences. Iowa’s knew law makes it unlawful to do an abortion under circumstances that include the heartbeat of the fetus being detected. New times, new technology. Roe relied in part on a woman’s right to privacy and to choose to kill the fetus (men have no such unilateral right and their unilateral abandonment can result in 18 years of support obligations). Nonetheless the woman’s right was not unlimited and the right of the unborn was not at issue so states can regulate how they will permit fetus killing. But here is the catch...
> 
> The only thing that can be declared unconstitutional is a law or action by a government agency. This is because the constitution declares limits on what the government can do, and then the Supreme Court makes sure those limits are adhered too. Roe v. Wade however, is not a law or government agency action that the supreme court would declare unconstitutional, but is a decision the court put out, which is how they tell us what the constitution means, that said that the government could not make it illegal to get an abortion.  The Supreme Court is not bound to the decisions they make however, they have the power to change what they’ve said in the past and declare things they said we’re allowed under the constitution not allowed, and to declare things they said were constitutional unconstitutional.
> 
> That is the reason why I ask you this question that is completely unrelated to the discussion about immigration.  A Supreme Court decision cannot generally be unconstitutional. The court itself decided, in Marbury v Madison, via some legal magic, that it has the power to determine what is and is not constitutional, and even if Supreme Court's decision is overturned, there’s no grounds on which a future court might find that Court exceeded its powers. What’s at question is not whether the Supreme Court acted constitutionally in deciding Roe v. Wade, or Dred Scott, or Immigration issue, but whether the case was correctly decided.
> 
> Therefore, federal immigration laws ARE laws of the land, weather you like it or not. And if you think they're unconstitutional, sue the federal government, and try to make your case up to the SCOTUS, and test your activist knowledge in front of top justices of the land. Just like States today are arguing about constitutionality of CommieCare, or State's abortion laws, or gun control laws, by challenging the laws, you make your case. Either that, or like every other Commie, force them into submission.
> 
> I wont be replying to you after this, regardless of what you say. No point debating with you, due to your ideological insanity.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely wrong on all counts, but I've handed out one ass whipping tonight.  So, I'll make it easy for you:

Since you do not have a law degree and have never been in court, you probably don't have a damn clue as to how the system really works.  Neither do you know shit about what you're talking about.  Dred Scott v. Sanford was overturned by the *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment.  No state has the authority to overturn Roe v. Wade.  If they find some new principle of law to litigate; if the known science changes regarding when a life begins - and the high Court considers it; if there was evidence that can be produced that would question the Roe v. Wade decision, then the Court could legitimately consider it.  You asked a question and you got an answer.  Anybody questioning my understanding skills and they don't know the difference between whether and weather is probably not smart enough to be IN this discussion.  Come back when you've done some more reading.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Gdjjr said:


> The wall will do more to keep us in..... line than to keep anyone out. We are already asked about citizenship within 100 miles of the Rio Grande- the Police State despises free movement.


If you travel to any nation, you MUST have a passport and in some cases, a visa.  The nations aren't "police states."  They believe that if someone wants to enter their nation, they should try to be sure that the people traveling to them aren't fleeing arrest warrants, known terrorists, murderers, rapists, robbers, et cetera.  It's common sense.  
You're no doubt one of the "George Soros" Free Movement of Peoples crowd. Once nations like Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia, saw what carnage and deaths that was occurring by the EU allowing the George Soros concept to play out, they closed their borders and refused to let in any migrants, despite the EU's objections. Result...no similar problem. No terrorist activities. Now, Italy is getting tough on it and has tossed out thousands of migrants and has loosened its gun restrictions so that the Italians can protect themselves.


----------



## Gdjjr

LuckyDuck said:


> If you travel to any nation, you MUST have a passport and in some cases, a visa.  The nations aren't "police states."  They believe that if someone wants to enter their nation, they should try to be sure that the people traveling to them aren't fleeing arrest warrants, known terrorists, murderers, rapists, robbers, et cetera.  It's common sense.
> You're no doubt one of the "George Soros" Free Movement of Peoples crowd. Once nations like Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia, saw what carnage and deaths that was occurring by the EU allowing the George Soros concept to play out, they closed their borders and refused to let in any migrants, despite the EU's objections. Result...no similar problem. No terrorist activities. Now, Italy is getting tough on it and has tossed out thousands of migrants and has loosened its gun restrictions so that the Italians can protect themselves.


FYI, this isn't other Nations. THIS Country's founding philosophy, the Declaration of Independence, clearly states MY beliefs- the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are NO caveats- vs your apparent beliefs that you and your kind (authoritarians) are omnipotent and can declare that other humans don't have inherent Rights- kinda like George Soros, not to mention the Empty Suit brigade that infects the District of Criminals.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Gdjjr said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you travel to any nation, you MUST have a passport and in some cases, a visa.  The nations aren't "police states."  They believe that if someone wants to enter their nation, they should try to be sure that the people traveling to them aren't fleeing arrest warrants, known terrorists, murderers, rapists, robbers, et cetera.  It's common sense.
> You're no doubt one of the "George Soros" Free Movement of Peoples crowd. Once nations like Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia, saw what carnage and deaths that was occurring by the EU allowing the George Soros concept to play out, they closed their borders and refused to let in any migrants, despite the EU's objections. Result...no similar problem. No terrorist activities. Now, Italy is getting tough on it and has tossed out thousands of migrants and has loosened its gun restrictions so that the Italians can protect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, this isn't other Nations. THIS Country's founding philosophy, the Declaration of Independence, clearly states MY beliefs- the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are NO caveats- vs your apparent beliefs that you and your kind (authoritarians) are omnipotent and can declare that other humans don't have inherent Rights- kinda like George Soros, not to mention the Empty Suit brigade that infects the District of Criminals.
Click to expand...

The Declaration of Independence was just that.  A Declaration of Independence from England's Monarchy.  Our Constitution set up our federal laws via the Bill of Rights (the Amendments).
As to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you do have the right to live, be free to move around the country, even leave the country at will and pursue happiness, providing your pursuit of happiness isn't committing crimes against others.
If you're looking for true police states, look no further than, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, Islamic nations and any nation run by a military junta.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LuckyDuck said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you travel to any nation, you MUST have a passport and in some cases, a visa.  The nations aren't "police states."  They believe that if someone wants to enter their nation, they should try to be sure that the people traveling to them aren't fleeing arrest warrants, known terrorists, murderers, rapists, robbers, et cetera.  It's common sense.
> You're no doubt one of the "George Soros" Free Movement of Peoples crowd. Once nations like Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia, saw what carnage and deaths that was occurring by the EU allowing the George Soros concept to play out, they closed their borders and refused to let in any migrants, despite the EU's objections. Result...no similar problem. No terrorist activities. Now, Italy is getting tough on it and has tossed out thousands of migrants and has loosened its gun restrictions so that the Italians can protect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, this isn't other Nations. THIS Country's founding philosophy, the Declaration of Independence, clearly states MY beliefs- the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are NO caveats- vs your apparent beliefs that you and your kind (authoritarians) are omnipotent and can declare that other humans don't have inherent Rights- kinda like George Soros, not to mention the Empty Suit brigade that infects the District of Criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was just that.  A Declaration of Independence from England's Monarchy.  Our Constitution set up our federal laws via the Bill of Rights (the Amendments).
> As to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you do have the right to live, be free to move around the country, even leave the country at will and pursue happiness, providing your pursuit of happiness isn't committing crimes against others.
> If you're looking for true police states, look no further than, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, Islamic nations and any nation run by a military junta.
Click to expand...



You have your opinion and another man has his opinion.  I'd like to ask the* man who WROTE* the Declaration of Independence what it was.  Oh, wait a minute.  He's already weighed in on that.  Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“_The Declaration of Independence...[is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man._” — Thomas Jefferson, 1819

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default...ource Center Site/Publications/PDFs/M-654.pdf


----------



## Gdjjr

LuckyDuck said:


> As to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you do have the right to live, be free to move around the country, even leave the country at will and pursue happiness, providing your pursuit of happiness isn't committing crimes against others.


As a matter of fact, no. How many examples do you want?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody except godverment employees walks all over anyone- being disingenuous doesn't lend credibility-
> I'm here in Texas lived here all my life (except when I was stationed in Long Beach in the Navy) and the only problem I ever had with Mexicans was when some, spoiled, smart ass white boy went to the Mexican part of town and started trouble and came running back to where we were- he went there first.
> My best friend in the Navy was a Mexican from Rockdale, Tx -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well good for you. But the rest of us have had problems with illegal aliens, I kinda doubt that's an isolated occurrence.  I live in Colorado, way far from the southern border and its a ginormous problem. People lose jobs and homes, the  huge negative impact on our judicial system. Colorado is not a border state,  it's hundred of miles from the any border. We didn't ask for this, we didn't allow it to happen, it was forced on us.
Click to expand...


Somebody forced an employer to get rid of an American and hire a foreigner???  Do tell.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody except godverment employees walks all over anyone- being disingenuous doesn't lend credibility-
> I'm here in Texas lived here all my life (except when I was stationed in Long Beach in the Navy) and the only problem I ever had with Mexicans was when some, spoiled, smart ass white boy went to the Mexican part of town and started trouble and came running back to where we were- he went there first.
> My best friend in the Navy was a Mexican from Rockdale, Tx -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well good for you. But the rest of us have had problems with illegal aliens, I kinda doubt that's an isolated occurrence.  I live in Colorado, way far from the southern border and its a ginormous problem. People lose jobs and homes, the  huge negative impact on our judicial system. Colorado is not a border state,  it's hundred of miles from the any border. We didn't ask for this, we didn't allow it to happen, it was forced on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somebody forced an employer to get rid of an American and hire a foreigner???  Do tell.
Click to expand...

In a sense they did when America was flooded with low skilled illegals who would take jobs
Americans used to do at about half the cost, all things considered.

So the cost for employers went down, and the cost to everyone else went up to support this illegal and his family. And our laws were ignored and our counties became complicit in breaking the law and our schools
and neighborhoods became degraded. 

And a small percentage of idiots seemed to think it was all a great deal.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody except godverment employees walks all over anyone- being disingenuous doesn't lend credibility-
> I'm here in Texas lived here all my life (except when I was stationed in Long Beach in the Navy) and the only problem I ever had with Mexicans was when some, spoiled, smart ass white boy went to the Mexican part of town and started trouble and came running back to where we were- he went there first.
> My best friend in the Navy was a Mexican from Rockdale, Tx -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well good for you. But the rest of us have had problems with illegal aliens, I kinda doubt that's an isolated occurrence.  I live in Colorado, way far from the southern border and its a ginormous problem. People lose jobs and homes, the  huge negative impact on our judicial system. Colorado is not a border state,  it's hundred of miles from the any border. We didn't ask for this, we didn't allow it to happen, it was forced on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somebody forced an employer to get rid of an American and hire a foreigner???  Do tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a sense they did when America was flooded with low skilled illegals who would take jobs
> Americans used to do at about half the cost, all things considered.
> 
> So the cost for employers went down, and the cost to everyone else went up to support this illegal and his family. And our laws were ignored and our counties became complicit in breaking the law and our schools
> and neighborhoods became degraded.
> 
> And a small percentage of idiots seemed to think it was all a great deal.
Click to expand...


Whether it is a great deal or not, a private employer, in our de jure / lawful /legal / constitutional Republic should be able to hire whomever they want.  Private property is one the great hallmarks of our constitutional Republic.  You have started out with TWO false presuppositions here, so let me fix them for you:

*  False presupposition # 1 - NOBODY is an illegal any damn thing until they have been arrested, booked, made bail, and gone through a process.  Take that from an AMERICAN who was denied due process and understands how this presumption of innocence thingy works

*  Secondly, if the government can tell a private employer who they can and cannot hire, it implies that the government is in charge of labor and production.  And what do we call a form of government that controls labor and production, and owns the jobs?  That would be *socialism*.  AND what caused the problem, the genesis of which, you are complaining about? 

If the government can tell a private employer who they can and cannot hire, it implies that the government is in charge of labor and production.  And what do we call a form of government that controls labor and production, and owns the jobs?  That would be *socialism*.  Do you even know HOW all of this started?  It all started with affirmative action, racial quotas, preferential hiring schemes, and then you had to have X number of LGBTQP, Y number of women, and Z number of other categories so that the Posterity of the framers didn't qualify for a job due to the government telling private business who to hire.  There was no category for you.

MAGA means Make America Great Again.  If the people wearing those hats used the brains under them, they would eventually get it.  IF we want to Make America Great *Again*, then you have to acknowledge that we were once great.  Who do you think owned and controlled business and labor back when America was great?  Hint:  You cannot build a government big enough to save you from yourself.


----------



## Gdjjr

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> In a sense they did when America was flooded with low skilled illegals who would take jobs
> Americans used to do at about half the cost, all things considered.
> 
> So the cost for employers went down, and the cost to everyone else went up to support this illegal and his family. And our laws were ignored and our counties became complicit in breaking the law and our schools
> and neighborhoods became degraded.
> 
> And a small percentage of idiots seemed to think it was all a great deal.


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

I don't see a caveat in that philosophy. Can you point out one? Or, do you just not subscribe to something in particular, like maybe Creator, or all men are created equal, or maybe certain unalienable Rights?

And while I may be an idiot, I can read simple English and have a pretty good grasp on word comprehension, (no thanks to the subscribed to, by BOTH Party's, Public Education system), so, maybe you can help me get beyond being an idiot. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Gdjjr

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> In a sense they did when America was flooded with low skilled illegals who would take jobs
> Americans used to do at about half the cost, all things considered.


Can you expound on, "all things considered"?
How many people do you know will swing a weed eater from can til can't every day?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Gdjjr said:


> Can you expound on, "all things considered"?
> How many people do you know will swing a weed eater from can til can't every day?


None for what uneducated unskilled illegals will do it for. I've seen illegals drive native workers right out
of some of the building trades and that's the problem, not that you seem to give a crap.

That puts American citizens out of work (A) and it (B) increases the costs borne by a community trying to
create a safety net for the families of illegals because Jose the illegal can't possibly support a family based
on what he makes without assistance.
It's also known as the Wal Mart Effect.

So unless you are the owner of a roofing company, or an asshole who likes flooding the nation with cheap compliant low wage workers who bring with them their families and delightful customs (like rampant 
alcoholism and a disregard for our laws of any sort) you see America loses in several significant ways, not that you give a rat's ass, as already said.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you expound on, "all things considered"?
> How many people do you know will swing a weed eater from can til can't every day?
> 
> 
> 
> None for what uneducated unskilled illegals will do it for. I've seen illegals drive native workers right out
> of some of the building trades and that's the problem, not that you seem to give a crap.
> 
> That puts American citizens out of work (A) and it (B) increases the costs borne by a community trying to
> create a safety net for the families of illegals because Jose the illegal can't possibly support a family based
> on what he makes without assistance.
> It's also known as the Wal Mart Effect.
> 
> So unless you are the owner of a roofing company, or an asshole who likes flooding the nation with cheap compliant low wage workers who bring with them their families and delightful customs (like rampant
> alcoholism and a disregard for our laws of any sort) you see America loses in several significant ways, not that you give a rat's ass, as already said.
Click to expand...


I find it ironic that you use the board name Eric Arthur Blair, but are nothing like George Orwell and concerned as he was in his novel, 1984.  Your objections to foreigners end up implying that you believe in a God / government.  

Be honest for a moment.  Sometimes I need help to get a job done.  I have a finite budget.  So, many times I'm working with people who are low income to fixed income folks.  The big bucks charged by Bubba simply isn't in the budget.  So, the choices are to hire the person who can get the job done at the price that is within that budget OR not do the repairs.  If the repairs are not done, someone may lose their home.  The other likely scenarios are that they end up living in a shack, breathing mold and stay unhealthy (which costs you in the end.)  Just yesterday, I did a concrete job.  One of the workers was 70.  The quoted price that everybody in town wanted to fix a crack in a basement was $1500.  Now, I'm part of a ministry trying to help white guys that are disenfranchised get back into the workforce.  Anyway, I give two white guys a *50 percent pay increase* over their part time sign spinning gigs, buy their breakfast, some Gatorades, and provide transportation.  Total cost: $600 in labor and material.   Explain to me why in the Hell a contractor thinks that $900 a day profit is justified.

America was established as a free market enterprise.  Somehow you have a problem with that.  Sometimes I offer gigs to white guys and they don't show up for work.  Should I then pay for a concrete truck out of my pocket and say screw it just because the worker isn't a USDA prime cut of American meat with his National ID Card, SSN, driver's license, occupation license, driver's license, MVR check, Interpol check, credit check, criminal background check; has submitted to a pee test, blood test and given me a hair sample?  So, I'm supposed to eat those kinds of losses and a homeowner loses their home just because Americans don't want to work?  

It's bad enough that silly people refer to human beings as "_illegal_" after the United States Supreme Court has ruled that being in the United States without documentation is NOT a crime and even if it were, you're fucking us out of a presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty.  If you ever get the opportunity to be screwed out of due process, I promise your attitude will change on that one.  The reality is, Americans are not going out there and looking for work.  They are expecting companies to come to them.  And it is *AMERICANS* who voted for those policies that allow the employer to invade their privacy only to learn of the potential employee's drug habit, criminal record, and / or health condition.  While you are on the Internet, complaining about it, foreigners are out there hustling and getting the jobs you're too lazy to work and / or dependent upon corporations to just give you a job because, after all... you're _"legal_" (sic.)  Give me a break.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Criminals do illegal things. That's what makes them criminals.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Criminals do illegal things. That's what makes them criminals.



Being in the United States without documentation does not make one a criminal.  So says the *United States Supreme Court*.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> Being in the United States without documentation does not make one a criminal. So says the *United States Supreme Court*.


That isn't being disputed. But how about trying to live here illegally? That's the real issue so I can see why
you are being disingenuous and deceptive.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being in the United States without documentation does not make one a criminal. So says the *United States Supreme Court*.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't being disputed. But how about trying to live here illegally? That's the real issue so I can see why
> you are being disingenuous and deceptive.
Click to expand...


What's deceptive?  Being in the United States without papers is not a crime.  Where, in your mind, is the deception?  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_." 

If you're going to call me deceptive, then let's cut the bullshit and talk turkey.  Let's be honest.  Is it your position that just because you're here, you don't have a Right to Life?  Forget that paperwork crap.  

I'm no fan of the *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment, but it takes precedence over any crackpot law you think you have that changes the bottom line.  Let's look at it:

"_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*._"

Note the difference between persons and citizens.  Citizens, that is 14th Amendment citizens, have privileges and immunities.  All PERSONS, as differentiated from citizens are entitled to the equal protection of the laws which include *LIFE* according to that Amendment.  So, is your position they are not persons?  Are foreigners animals?  So, where have I been deceptive?  My feeling is that you want to hide behind the immigration laws that were passed *AFTER* the 14th Amendment was passed AND AFTER the United States Supreme Court granted "_plenary powers_" over foreigners to Congress.   Here is a big fucking surprise for you:

AFTER the 14th Amendment was passed, the United States Supreme Court legislated from the bench, giving Congress "_plenary powers_" over foreigners.  No such authority exists for the United States Supreme Court to grant powers to any other branch of government.  Find it and prove I'm being deceptive.  Show me, in the Constitution, where such an authority exists for the United States Supreme Court to grant ANYBODY ANY POWERS.  Cite it.

Being in the United States without papers is not a crime; it is a civil violation of the immigration laws and those are on very questionable grounds since it is, constitutionally speaking, a *state's rights issue*.  The only de jure / lawful authority that the Constitution gives the federal government over foreigners is in Article I  Section 8 of the Constitution:

"_Congress shall have the power...  To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_" 

NOTHING in the Constitution prohibits states from engaging in free market enterprise with foreigners.  As a private citizen, who I hire, fire, buy from and sell to is my own business.  I don't need your help and I'm not beholden to you to run my life - even if you hide behind a socialist government.  So, where is the deception?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Criminals do illegal things. That's what makes them criminals.



YOU do illegal things.  That don't make you a criminal... then again socialists want that innocent until proven guilty thingy repealed.  Are you a socialist?


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals do illegal things. That's what makes them criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU do illegal things.  That don't [sic] make you a criminal...
Click to expand...

That’s kind of what it means.


----------



## Gdjjr

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Criminals do illegal things. That's what makes them criminals.


It's estimated that everyone breaks at last 3 laws a day. When are you going to turn yourself in?

Law writers make criminals of ordinary people. Like you. Now, if you can, with a straight face, say you've never done anything illegal I'm going to ask you how you know that. There are so many federal laws on the books they can't be counted.Throw in local laws and everyone is a criminal- including the holier than thou.
The Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness has no caveats. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.


----------



## Gdjjr

Unkotare said:


> That’s kind of what it means.


Not until proven guilty. That whole due process deal. Remember?
And assuming guilt is immoral. 

We have (allegedly) the Rule of Law and the assumption of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s kind of what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> Not until proven guilty. ...
Click to expand...

That makes you a convicted criminal.


----------



## Gdjjr

Unkotare said:


> That makes you a convicted criminal.


No, you're wrong, again. You aren't a criminal until you're proven to be a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty is the phrase, due process is the tool. Then and only then are you a criminal convicted of a crime. Until then it's alleged.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes you a convicted criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're wrong, again. You aren't a criminal until you're proven to be a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty is the phrase, due process is the tool. Then and only then are you a criminal convicted of a crime. Until then it's alleged.
Click to expand...

The person I was originally responding to had posited it as a given that a crime had in fact been committed. If you are going to butt in you should at least pay attention.


----------



## Gdjjr

Unkotare said:


> If you are going to butt in you should at least pay attention.


You're the one who butted in-


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Gdjjr said:


> It's estimated that everyone breaks at last 3 laws a day. When are you going to turn yourself in?


I have to say that's the weakest rationalization I've ever heard.



> Law writers make criminals of ordinary people. Like you. Now, if you can, with a straight face, say you've never done anything illegal I'm going to ask you how you know that. There are so many federal laws on the books they can't be counted.Throw in local laws and everyone is a criminal- including the holier than thou.
> The Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness has no caveats. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.


No. This is the weakest!
When I break the law and a cop pulls me over and writes me a ticket I take responsibility for what I've done.
I don't snivel and say what about him, and what about him.

Where I used to live there was no mystery about where all the illegals lived. It was absolutely obvious.
But the city fathers didn't want them rounded up and deported because then the big money winery owners would bitch about their workers being deported.

So the police were told hands off unless there was some crime that couldn't be ignored 
(usually drunk driving, hit and run, spousal abuse, etc.). That's how the corrupt system operated, and undoubtedly still does.
I can't believe you wasted your time posting that nonsense drivel.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals do illegal things. That's what makes them criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU do illegal things.  That don't [sic] make you a criminal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s kind of what it means.
Click to expand...

You need some new material.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals do illegal things. That's what makes them criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU do illegal things.  That don't [sic] make you a criminal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s kind of what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just declare directly and for the record that your intention here is just to be a troll. Go on.
Click to expand...



Your intention is to be a troll.  You need some new material.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals do illegal things. That's what makes them criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU do illegal things.  That don't [sic] make you a criminal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s kind of what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just declare directly and for the record that your intention here is just to be a troll. Go on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your intention is to be a troll.  You need some new material.
Click to expand...

Sez the retard who tried to derail the entire subject ...page after page after page 

Just saying 


Keep going though


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's estimated that everyone breaks at last 3 laws a day. When are you going to turn yourself in?
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that's the weakest rationalization I've ever heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Law writers make criminals of ordinary people. Like you. Now, if you can, with a straight face, say you've never done anything illegal I'm going to ask you how you know that. There are so many federal laws on the books they can't be counted.Throw in local laws and everyone is a criminal- including the holier than thou.
> The Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness has no caveats. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. This is the weakest!
> When I break the law and a cop pulls me over and writes me a ticket I take responsibility for what I've done.
> I don't snivel and say what about him, and what about him.
> 
> Where I used to live there was no mystery about where all the illegals lived. It was absolutely obvious.
> But the city fathers didn't want them rounded up and deported because then the big money winery owners would bitch about their workers being deported.
> 
> So the police were told hands off unless there was some crime that couldn't be ignored
> (usually drunk driving, hit and run, spousal abuse, etc.). That's how the corrupt system operated, and undoubtedly still does.
> I can't believe you wasted your time posting that nonsense drivel.
Click to expand...


OMG.  This has been explained to you.  State and local governments do not get involved in immigration matters due to *federal case law*.  It is called the _anti-commandeering doctrine_.  The federal government cannot compel state and local governments from enforcing federal laws.  Secondly, some states (rightfully so) know that the federal government has no constitutional authority to go after foreigners since it is a *state's rights* issue.  The feds have the POWER to declare otherwise, but the Constitution is clear and the feds* do not* have the AUTHORITY to even be involved in this.  You're worried about a federal civil misdemeanor (with a maximum fine of $250 being levied) not being enforced while over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply is being used in the United States and MILLIONS of our nation's finest are drug addicts that commit high dollar crimes to feed their habit.  

BTW, that is just *ONE* of our nation's many examples.  If Americans weren't on drugs, in prison, or dependent on the government they would apply for the jobs and then there would be no need for the foreigners to come here in the first place.

Please educate yourself on this before slinging skeet:





__





						Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
					





					www.bloomberg.com
				




The author of the article is a professor of law at Harvard.  If conservatives shoot themselves in the foot, they have no one to blame except themselves.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals do illegal things. That's what makes them criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU do illegal things.  That don't [sic] make you a criminal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s kind of what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just declare directly and for the record that your intention here is just to be a troll. Go on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your intention is to be a troll.  You need some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sez the retard who tried to derail the entire subject ...page after page after page
> 
> Just saying
> 
> 
> Keep going though
Click to expand...


If you can't read, go back to Twitter.  If you can't read, you're the retard.  When you need fairies to back you up, that is sad.  My posts are relevant to the subject at hand.  Face it.  You can't handle the truth.  If you find ten paragraph replies daunting, you probably can't even read.


----------



## flacaltenn

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody except godverment employees walks all over anyone- being disingenuous doesn't lend credibility-
> I'm here in Texas lived here all my life (except when I was stationed in Long Beach in the Navy) and the only problem I ever had with Mexicans was when some, spoiled, smart ass white boy went to the Mexican part of town and started trouble and came running back to where we were- he went there first.
> My best friend in the Navy was a Mexican from Rockdale, Tx -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well good for you. But the rest of us have had problems with illegal aliens, I kinda doubt that's an isolated occurrence.  I live in Colorado, way far from the southern border and its a ginormous problem. People lose jobs and homes, the  huge negative impact on our judicial system. Colorado is not a border state,  it's hundred of miles from the any border. We didn't ask for this, we didn't allow it to happen, it was forced on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean that people from south of the border actually force stores to sell to them, landlords to rent to them and employers are... what... held at gunpoint and forced to give the little brown people a job? * OR* is it more likely that your neighbors are willingly engaging in the free enterprise system?
Click to expand...


Only one major problem..  It's been law for DECADES that they CAN NOT BE HIRED....   Funny thing that -- because there is a "system" to make sure employers "check" status -- but the LAW mean nothing..  

Could stop illegal immigration OVERNIGHT if the "law" was actually followed and NO WALL...  But we're beyond that now with the prog left INSISTING that crossing the border without checking in NOT be a crime...  And that the BENEFITS of citizenship and welfare and health start as soon as your big toe crosses the goal line..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

flacaltenn said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody except godverment employees walks all over anyone- being disingenuous doesn't lend credibility-
> I'm here in Texas lived here all my life (except when I was stationed in Long Beach in the Navy) and the only problem I ever had with Mexicans was when some, spoiled, smart ass white boy went to the Mexican part of town and started trouble and came running back to where we were- he went there first.
> My best friend in the Navy was a Mexican from Rockdale, Tx -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well good for you. But the rest of us have had problems with illegal aliens, I kinda doubt that's an isolated occurrence.  I live in Colorado, way far from the southern border and its a ginormous problem. People lose jobs and homes, the  huge negative impact on our judicial system. Colorado is not a border state,  it's hundred of miles from the any border. We didn't ask for this, we didn't allow it to happen, it was forced on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean that people from south of the border actually force stores to sell to them, landlords to rent to them and employers are... what... held at gunpoint and forced to give the little brown people a job? * OR* is it more likely that your neighbors are willingly engaging in the free enterprise system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only one major problem..  It's been law for DECADES that they CAN NOT BE HIRED....   Funny thing that -- because there is a "system" to make sure employers "check" status -- but the LAW mean nothing..
> 
> Could stop illegal immigration OVERNIGHT if the "law" was actually followed and NO WALL...  But we're beyond that now with the prog left INSISTING that crossing the border without checking in NOT be a crime...  And that the BENEFITS of citizenship and welfare and health start as soon as your big toe crosses the goal line..
Click to expand...


Legal.  Illegal.  They are meaningless words on this issue *if* you support the Constitution.  Plain and simple - the federal government has *NO* jurisdiction over foreigners save of citizenship.  If you can show it to me in the Constitution, I'll be willing to concede that you are right.  HOWEVER, it wasn't until 1875 when every founder and framer was dead and buried that the United States Supreme Court gave "_plenary powers_" to Congress over foreigners.  And, again, there is *NO* provision in the United States Constitution that gives the United States Supreme Court the *authority* to grant to any other branch of the government ANY powers whatsoever.  

You cannot stop the flow of foreigners into the United States with a wall.  It can't be done.  What you can accomplish with such an effort is to negate much of the Bill of Rights in the vain effort of trying.  So, it really depends upon the value you place on *your *Liberty as to whether you continue to pursue this policy or not.   Between the so - called "Patriot Act," the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, the Constitution Free Zone, and warrant less searches, you would think people would reassess this policy of pursuing this madness of chasing after nonexistent "_illegal aliens_." 

You created the problem by supporting too many laws that infringe on the Rights of the private sector and the private sector would have balanced out the issue of foreigners being here all through the free market.  You cannot pass enough laws to save you from your own ignorance.


----------



## Gdjjr

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I have to say that's the weakest rationalization I've ever heard.


You're the one trying to rationalize. I pointed out facts. You're using belief.

rationale:

noun: *rationale*; plural noun: *rationales*

a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or a particular belief.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> No. This is the weakest!
> When I break the law and a cop pulls me over and writes me a ticket I take responsibility for what I've done.
> I don't snivel and say what about him, and what about him.
> 
> Where I used to live there was no mystery about where all the illegals lived. It was absolutely obvious.
> But the city fathers didn't want them rounded up and deported because then the big money winery owners would bitch about their workers being deported.
> 
> So the police were told hands off unless there was some crime that couldn't be ignored
> (usually drunk driving, hit and run, spousal abuse, etc.). That's how the corrupt system operated, and undoubtedly still does.
> I can't believe you wasted your time posting that nonsense drivel.



When you break a law and a cop pulls you over- who wrote that law? Who gave that cop the authority to be judge, jury and executioner if you don't comply? How many of those laws are for real crime? The only real crime is harming another or taking what doesn't belong to you.

Where I STILL live (in Texas, in a Houston suburb) most people, no matter their place of origin, are hard working people. We can play anecdotes all day long. It will change nothing. Most of the arrests are of "legal" citizens and most of the police shootings are against citizens. ALL SWAT shit and No Knock raids are against citizens. The guys swinging weed eaters from can to can't don't have the time or the energy to harm others or steal shit. But, by god! cops can find the energy and time to be law enFORCERS of immoral acts against humans bound by "laws", immoral in nature, and claim "I feared for my life" for Qualified Immunity-

So, the police were hands off unless a real crime was committed. Good. Explain a real crime to the next cop that pulls you over for what might happen and ask him where he got his mind reading certificate from.


----------



## Gdjjr

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT- unless improperly educated in the (unconstitutional) Public Education System.
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL- until we, the improperly educated, say that isn't true.
The RIGHT to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is to be determined by those improperly educated.
And the sheeple all said, AMEN!


----------



## Gdjjr

flacaltenn said:


> Only one major problem.. It's been law for DECADES that they CAN NOT BE HIRED.... Funny thing that -- because there is a "system" to make sure employers "check" status -- but the LAW mean nothing..
> 
> Could stop illegal immigration OVERNIGHT if the "law" was actually followed and NO WALL... But we're beyond that now with the prog left INSISTING that crossing the border without checking in NOT be a crime... And that the BENEFITS of citizenship and welfare and health start as soon as your big toe crosses the goal line..


The law writers break the law all the time- there is no such thing as "illegal immigration"- there is immoral action by law writers, supported by acolytes of godvernment, deeming "law" as omnipotent. It ain't.

Law is supposed to punish for criminal action. Criminal action is harming another or taking what isn't your's.
Can you say Fines? Can you say IRS? Can you say "Prohibition"? Can you say coercion enFORCED by law with a Comply or Die attitude?

Crossing arbitrary borders is not a criminal action anymore than breathing- of course right now that is a crime if you don't dress like a thief and wear a mask.

What most *regressives* fail to comprehend is; rules will be broken and deter nothing. They are revenue sources. Period. Except when one of the omnipotents does it. Many, law writers and interpreters of law, set the example about ignoring Rules (the constitution). In a monkey see monkey do world guess where that leads?

Liberty and Justice for all means nothing to conservatives, or Democrats or Republicans or so called Liberals- it's merely part of a bumper sticker campaign to placate the improperly educated (look in a mirror for confirmation) - self evident truths means nothing to "Americans"- Rights mean nothing to Americans. Life means nothing to Americans. To Americans (who are a large group of sheeple) Happiness is determined by what society dictates in material acquisition- they are shallow, narrow minded, narcissistic and superficial because they are IMPROPERLY educated by an UNconstitunional mandate in the Public Education centers for compliance- but hey, as long as their guy is in charge, who cares? Right? The way their guy is unconstitutional is okay- it's the other guy who is bad. SMH- 

You people are absolutely pathetic.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

So this nation, and I assume any other, has no right to restrict who enters their nation and more importantly,
lives there? 

That's asinine.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> So this nation, and I assume any other, has no right to restrict who enters their nation and more importantly,
> lives there?
> 
> That's asinine.



After you've been schooled on this, I hope you take the time to change your board name.  Blair was against the concept of a government god.

The* federal government has no jurisdiction* in saying who comes and goes within any state
Who lives and works in any given *state* is, constitutionally, the *state's* prerogative

People are free to travel inside the United States.  The fact that you call yourself Eric Arthur Blair and then *demand Big Brother* is disturbing.  Blair, writing under the pen name of George Orwell was trying to warn us AGAINST the all powerful government you seek.  The United States is a country that was built on free enterprise.  Let's carry your Big Brother crap out to its predictable end:

If someone from a foreign country is not allowed to exercise *unalienable* Rights, than neither can you.  THAT is how the left flipped the right.  You bought into liberal thinking that people should be restricted from moving about unless they were USDA approved American meat with all the trimmings.  So, now *YOU* have to carry a National ID Card based on your Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "_Social Security Number_."  With that, *YOU* can be tracked 24 / 7 / 365.  Liberals are inconsistent on this point, but even they are smart enough to figure out what happens when people have to use a National ID just to move about in the normal course of business:


You seem to think that we can somehow magically tell who is an American versus a foreigner without BOTH the foreigner AND the American carrying around a National ID card.  And you call people that disagree with you asinine?  So, when the tyrants take over and you think we should revolt, how in the Hell can you organize and fight back when every detail of your life is at their command via a few keystrokes simply because you don't understand the concept of an *unalienable* Right to Liberty?  If you're carrying a National ID and the BLM comes to power, they might want to single you out for a re-education camp for indoctrination *OR* maybe to make their genocidal warfare official.  I don't believe you follow through the consequences of your actions. 

We can restrict people from coming into the country, but why?  Why would you want to do it?  Competition is good for business.  The cow dung you're selling is pure socialism; which is what Eric Arthur Blair was trying to warn people AGAINST.  It's obvious you do not understand that Liberty is an *unalienable* Right.  IF our country were being run according to the United States Constitution MINUS the *illegally ratified *14th Amendment, the foreigners would be able to travel about freely, participate in the free market, work, and go about their business.  They would *NOT* be able to put their kids in public schools, vote, collect unemployment checks  / welfare / "_entitlements_" (even for citizens I hate that word.)  They could only get medical care in an emergency, if they risked life or limb without such care, and care for pregnant women.  BTW, they *DO* pay for their medical care, and at a higher rate than an insured pays (so they are able to offset your medical costs.)  But, trying appeal to those whose shoe size is greater than their IQ on that one is a hard sell here.

WITHOUT the *illegally ratified *14th Amendment, there would be no automatic birthright citizenship so that would be off the table.  Had you not persisted with that Socialist Surveillance Number (_Social Security Number_) ID, we had that war won in the 1990s.  Without the SSN and the income tax, you'd get a hefty raise in your paycheck.  But you anti-immigrant types liked that plank out of the Communist Manifesto being used to bilk you out of your hard earned money - it gave you a pretext to bitch about so - called "_illegal aliens._"  So you protected the income tax just to bitch and accuse the foreigners from "_stealing_" your job.  When the government owns and controls production, labor, and the ownership of jobs, you have _socialism_.  It don't work.  AND, Eric Arthur Blair would rebuke you for the position you've taken.  You are wrong on SO many levels.


----------



## Gdjjr

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> That's asinine.


Asinine is being intentionally obtuse. Look in a mirror for that definition.


BTW, I saw all your little laughing emoji's- can't you react any better than that?
How about an at least feeble attempt to refute anything I said.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Gdjjr said:


> Asinine is being intentionally obtuse. Look in a mirror for that definition.


Why don't you look in the mirror for the definition of a libertarian baboon, if you call yourself a libertarian.
You are certainly a baboon.




> BTW, I saw all your little laughing emoji's- can't you react any better than that?
> How about an at least feeble attempt to refute anything I said.


No, I've given you all the respect your asinine posts deserve. In fact I've given you too much attention already.

If you don't believe a sovereign nation has the right to to control it's own borders then you don't believe
in sovereignty. And if you don't believe in sovereignty then you are some sort of open borders magic fairy
that believes libertarian bullshit. That makes you essentially an anarchist though you are too cowardly to
admit it. Your ideal surroundings are probably the lawless mountain frontiers of Afghanistan where the only
law is what your local tribal chief demands.

You're a cheap fucker who rationalizes being a miser and a miserable shit.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asinine is being intentionally obtuse. Look in a mirror for that definition.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you look in the mirror for the definition of a libertarian baboon, if you call yourself a libertarian.
> You are certainly a baboon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I saw all your little laughing emoji's- can't you react any better than that?
> How about an at least feeble attempt to refute anything I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I've given you all the respect your asinine posts deserve. In fact I've given you too much attention already.
> 
> If you don't believe a sovereign nation has the right to to control it's own borders then you don't believe
> in sovereignty. And if you don't believe in sovereignty then you are some sort of open borders magic fairy
> that believes libertarian bullshit. That makes you essentially an anarchist though you are too cowardly to
> admit it. Your ideal surroundings are probably the lawless mountain frontiers of Afghanistan where the only
> law is what your local tribal chief demands.
> 
> You're a cheap fucker who rationalizes being a miser and a miserable shit.
Click to expand...


You sound like an angry little, insignificant loser that can't see the forest for the trees.  Sovereignty is NOT the exercise of tyranny you total dumbass.  A little studying into American history will reveal that to you.


----------



## Gdjjr

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Why don't you look in the mirror for the definition of a libertarian baboon, if you call yourself a libertarian.
> You are certainly a baboon.


Is that the best you can do?


----------



## Gdjjr

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> If you don't believe a sovereign nation has the right to to control it's own borders then you don't believe
> in sovereignty. And if you don't believe in sovereignty then you are some sort of open borders magic fairy
> that believes libertarian bullshit. That makes you essentially an anarchist though you are too cowardly to
> admit it. Your ideal surroundings are probably the lawless mountain frontiers of Afghanistan where the only
> law is what your local tribal chief demands.
> 
> You're a cheap fucker who rationalizes being a miser and a miserable shit.


I recognize sovereign and have, in fact, pointed out many times the US gov't doesn't recognize sovereign until it fits an agenda it's promoting/enFORCING. 
Sovereign is; control of a limited sphere. 
Libertarian is about Liberty. That you believe it bullshit speaks to your desire to control outside your sovereign sphere. That, I suspect, comes from improper education, combined with a  narcissistic, shallow and narrow minded point of view-

I believe, as I have said, laws are meant to punish for criminal activity, which requires harming another or taking what doesn't belong to you- I KNOW laws are meant to generate revenue and I KNOW rules are made to be broken since the Empty Suit brigades around the Country prove it daily. I KNOW that making ordinary people criminals, through law, is job justification for morons who can't hack it in the arena of wealth production and have to rely on wealth confiscation to make them feel good about their shallow and narrow minded, distorted view on life. 

I'm not cheap either. I'm utilitarian. I'm also quite happy as I've bought 5 new guitars since April, (3 Fender acoustics, one of which is electric acoustic, an Alvarez AD60 and an Ibanez ALT 30 electric acoustic) and I've learned probably 15 songs I didn't previously know. Plus, Sprint Car Racing has been streamed nearly every evening for the past several weeks (on Dirtvision and Flo racing) and I can sit outside on my patio drinking good coffee and watch to my hearts content. And, best of all, I don't have to call people stupid names because I can't make my point. That makes me very happy since I'm not formally educated/indoctrinated, which validates my opinion about Public Education.
I appreciate the forum you've helped provide.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> You sound like an angry little, insignificant loser that can't see the forest for the trees. Sovereignty is NOT the exercise of tyranny you total dumbass. A little studying into American history will reveal that to you.


Every nation in the world believes in this form of "tyranny", moron. Control of borders is a 
hallmark of sovereignty.
Speaking of angry little insignificant losers take a look at how many posters will pay any attention to you and your boyfriend at all as you spew out your absolute idiocy.

That number is now reduced by one as you both made the ignore list through diligent stupidity and
misplaced hostility. You can bother each other now.


----------



## Gdjjr

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> your asinine posts


asinine:  extremely stupid or foolish. 

Go back and read what's you've typed then tell me the difference.


----------



## Gdjjr

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Every nation in the world believes in this form of "tyranny", moron.


Tyranny is "officially" (sanctioned) oppression. Nothing more, nothing less. 
Immoral Laws are official sanctioning BTW.
American Exceptionalism, if and when it existed, WAS the Constitution which was designed to help prevent "official tyranny" by a federal gov't..  That would mean, for your edification, the US gov't was designed to NOT be like "every other nation"- and was, in fact, quite different, intentionally, as the founders were students of History and recognized the sovereignty of Individual States (the 13 colonies)- thus the 10th amendment, which the ILLEGALLY ratified 14th amendment eviscerated. Similar to the Homeland Security Act which literally eviscerated the 4th amendment.

You're in way over your head. Playing in the deep end of the pool without a life preserver or life guard close by will get you in trouble, every time, no matter how many times you try to kill the messenger(s)- the message will live on- the "I"ndividual will still be around when your crowd has shifted its allegiance, changed its name and direction, but, Individuals, simply by being born have the same Rights you do and will be around until humanity is extinct.


----------



## Gdjjr

For the godvernment erudite acolytes




> First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
> Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
> Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
> Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.




Make no mistake- your time will come.


----------



## Gdjjr

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> moron.


a stupid person. 

Stupid is worked at. Being ignorant is a natural phenomenon- ignorance can be easily overcome. 
Intentionally obtuse is working at being stupid. Some, actually many, are working on their PhD in that particular discipline- and yes, it is a discipline- many use political message boards as their thesis outline-


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an angry little, insignificant loser that can't see the forest for the trees. Sovereignty is NOT the exercise of tyranny you total dumbass. A little studying into American history will reveal that to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Every nation in the world believes in this form of "tyranny", moron. Control of borders is a
> hallmark of sovereignty.
> Speaking of angry little insignificant losers take a look at how many posters will pay any attention to you and your boyfriend at all as you spew out your absolute idiocy.
> 
> That number is now reduced by one as you both made the ignore list through diligent stupidity and
> misplaced hostility. You can bother each other now.
Click to expand...


Every nation in the world is not the United States.  Today, as the BLM is destroying all of the monuments, plaques, memorials and statues of our ancestors, I'm extremely puzzled.  Despite the fact that the United States initially started out as an all white nation (with respect as to who could become a citizen), our doors were open to the world.  It is what differentiated us from all the other places that have the *POLICE STATE* you dream about.  

People could come in, work, visit and see how the greatest nation on earth operated.  That didn't mean they could become a part of the body politic.  Insofar as to who is paying attention to me and whoever in the Hell my "_boyfriend_" is supposed to be, Trump's signature issue is a freaking wall.  Yet, the Democrats are running a senile dumbass suffering from dementia and the Republicans have all but resigned themselves to defeat.  Adding insult to injury, Donald Trump doesn't have one, single, solitary piece of legislation that insures his anti-immigrant policies will continue.  He's governed by Executive fiat... which means with the stroke of a pen, it is possible that a senile Democrat could undo all of what Trump did with the stroke of a pen.  It would have been different had Congress passed legislation that a future president could not revoke with the stroke of a pen.

You are a complete and utter idiot.  You could not make any points so you were the first to begin name calling.  The one thing your dumb ass don't seem to understand is that I am well aware of the results of multiculturalism - especially as it has been *forced* on us during the course of my life.  I lost my first full time job to blacks because the next construction project the company I was on required them to hire X number of blacks.  So, a lot of whites didn't get a call back.  I got to witness the injustices of preferential hiring, racial quotas, affirmative action, and reverse discrimination.  My argument back then was that the employer should be the one making the call as to who gets hired.  You dumb shits promoting Bill Clinton's 1995 immigration policy (while voting for Republicans) have your heads stuck so far up your ass that you cannot see one truth.  The federal government is not on your side.  They never have been and never will be.  The symptoms you complain about are better resolved by the free market.  That means *eliminating* anti-discrimination legislation, *NOT* adding to it.  You are* NOT* for a limited government.  You've thrown in the towel and accepted defeat.  You are *NOT* Eric Arthur Blair.  You are Winston Smith.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Gdjjr said:


> For the godvernment erudite acolytes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
> Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
> Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
> Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake- your time will come.
Click to expand...


With the BLM erasing and destroying our history, I'd say brother Blair... or is it Winston Smith's day has come.  The race war he dreamed of is here and he has become most conspicuous by his absence.  He couldn't prevail in a simple discussion board exchange without calling people names and running away with his panties in a bunch.


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter Rockwell said:


> running away with his panties in a bunch.


I was going to be generous and give him until tomorrow- but, I did recognize he ran away when the going got tough-


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Gdjjr said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> running away with his panties in a bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to be generous and give him until tomorrow- but, I did recognize he ran away when the going got tough-
Click to expand...


If he were going to respond, he would have.  I think those brain dead idiots like him realize they have no credible arguments.  They think exactly like Democrats.  It's all about *control *of human beings*.* We do control our borders.  When was the last time we were successfully invaded?  The anti-immigrant people can't admit the simple truth: the reason foreigners are here is because Americans *willingly *do business with them.  *Americans* are the ones who prop up the income tax, background check schemes, and National ID to police a nation that *willingly* consumes over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, not to mention the tons of other illegal drugs and the over prescribed "_legal_" ones.  Somebody has to do the work. 

The sovereignty of the federal government is limited by the Constitution and our Constitution simply does not give the federal government any *authority* to interfere in *unalienable *Rights.   I don't even think those chanting the mantra knows what the concept means.  FWIW:



			https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/


----------



## San Souci

MaryL said:


> Its funny, 50 years ago  the Spaniards (from Mexico) I knew where veterans of the Spanish-American war and even fought in WWI. They  became rag men, they had sad ol swayback ponies they sold rides to children  on, junk men like good  ol' Bonifacio. History is lost.   Now, Mexican illegals walk over me like they own the place. They have no clue, as do most  of you.


Besides ,they are all the DREGS of Mexico. Do we get Scientists? Engineers? Techs? No. Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.


----------



## Gdjjr

San Souci said:


> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.


Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence. 

People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Gdjjr said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
Click to expand...


What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.

Patrick Henry was home schooled.

Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.


----------



## San Souci

Porter Rockwell said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
Click to expand...

But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.


----------



## San Souci

Gdjjr said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
Click to expand...

Formal? Like in COLLEGE? Nope. College sucks nowadays. I am talking about having a marketable skill and a grasp of the English language. And maybe a touch of our HISTORY.


----------



## Gdjjr

San Souci said:


> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.


So?


----------



## Gdjjr

San Souci said:


> I am talking about having a marketable skill and a grasp of the English language.


Swinging weed eaters and cooking and cleaning is marketable.

Next.


----------



## Gdjjr

San Souci said:


> Formal? Like in COLLEGE?


My formal education ended in 1963-64, in the 9th grade. I went on to be employed as an Engineering Technician filling a Mechanical Engineering billet and proof reading degreed mechanical engineers letters before sending them to a secretary before being typed - while producing usuable shop sketches (along with a BOM) for trained Draftsmen to produce formal drawings-

*Stupefied*
*How organisations enshrine collective stupidity and employees are rewarded for checking their brains at the office door.*






						You don't say- whod a thunk it
					

Stupefied How organisations enshrine collective stupidity and employees are rewarded for checking their brains at the office door.   Why did it take until 2020 to recognize this?



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Feel free to comment


----------



## San Souci

Gdjjr said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> 
> 
> So?
Click to expand...

So? How do they seek employment?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

San Souci said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
Click to expand...


Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.


----------



## luchitociencia

Gdjjr said:


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



Great.

I will tell to a group of "cuates" to jump your fence and get into your property and set over there. They can build their tent and use your land as theirs. You won't have any objection because you preach their UNaliebale rights to life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If I heard any complaint from you because those Mexicans living inside your property, then I will be the first one to kick your dumb ass.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

luchitociencia said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> I will tell to a group of "cuates" to jump your fence and get into your property and set over there. They can build their tent and use your land as theirs. You won't have any objection because you preach their UNaliebale rights to life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> If I heard any complaint from you because those Mexicans living inside your property, then I will be the first one to kick your dumb ass.
Click to expand...


You obviously do not understand the equation.  Nobody is jumping anybody's fence to use property as if it belong to the fence jumper.  The concept of *unalienable *Rights is enshrined in the words of the Declaration of Independence (the holiday we celebrated just yesterday):

"_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_..." 

OBVIOUSLY, this could not apply to only citizens of the United States.  Such a country did not exist.  Furthermore, after the Constitution was ratified, people came from every corner of the world to engage in free enterprise here.  Only whites could be become citizens and enjoy certain privileges.  AND it would not be until all the founders and framers were dead and buried before the United States Supreme Court* illegally* granted "_plenary powers_" to Congress on this issue.  You see, our Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *authority* to bestow upon any other branch of government any powers.   It's a state's rights issue.  People engage in free enterprise.  Any law, at any level (city, county, state, or federal) that jeopardizes that Right of Liberty is null and void IF you support the original meaning of the Constitution.


----------



## luchitociencia

Porter Rockwell said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> I will tell to a group of "cuates" to jump your fence and get into your property and set over there. They can build their tent and use your land as theirs. You won't have any objection because you preach their UNaliebale rights to life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> If I heard any complaint from you because those Mexicans living inside your property, then I will be the first one to kick your dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously do not understand the equation.  Nobody is jumping anybody's fence to use property as if it belong to the fence jumper.  The concept of *unalienable *Rights is enshrined in the words of the Declaration of Independence (the holiday we celebrated just yesterday):
> 
> "_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_..."
> 
> OBVIOUSLY, this could not apply to only citizens of the United States.  Such a country did not exist.  Furthermore, after the Constitution was ratified, people came from every corner of the world to engage in free enterprise here.  Only whites could be become citizens and enjoy certain privileges.  AND it would not be until all the founders and framers were dead and buried before the United States Supreme Court* illegally* granted "_plenary powers_" to Congress on this issue.  You see, our Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *authority* to bestow upon any other branch of government any powers.   It's a state's rights issue.  People engage in free enterprise.  Any law, at any level (city, county, state, or federal) that jeopardizes that Right of Liberty is null and void IF you support the original meaning of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Point is that those words "_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_..." were mentioned for US citizens inside the US land.

This is to say, TODAY under the new laws of immigration, in order for a foreign to enjoy the same phrase, he must first be invited (obtain visa) to reside in the US.

Such phrase won't apply to invaders. 

You see, at the beginning , when this country was in need of hand work to produce in this land, people from other places were welcomed.

But, laws change in accord to necessity, and there was a moment when new regulations about who can come and who can't was to be established. Something similar to the biblical narration where at the beginning brothers were to have their sisters and half sisters are their wives. But, later, when population was greater in number and diverse, a new regulation took place and marriages between brothers and sisters weren't allowed anymore.

You can't compare the immigration system of two centuries ago with today's. Both are different and rule in accord to the needs of the country.

It is very sad with what is going on in many countries, but also there is an abuse of the immigration system vacuum where people from other countries enter to the US breaking the law. You see, the US accepts thousands of people every year. These people fill up all the requirements asked in order to obtain their visa. They are welcomed by the US government and the law of immigration works perfectly.

However, the law breakers come illegally and later they demand to change their status even "before" the ones who are doing the same process but legally from their countries.

Corrupt attorneys manipulate the system in order to make profit, and they are the ones who also promote the illegal immigration. 

To start, I would freeze all immigration transaction from illegal immigrants who came without visa and the ones who came with visa of tourist or student and their visas are not valid anymore and they want to obtain their residence anyway.

A complete freeze to all those cases, and make the immigration department to concentrate as priority with all the cases which are pending from people who are applying for visas legally from their countries.

Any illegal immigrant who is caught to be deported without the waste of a court case. Making the system as simple as it can be, will make it more effective to accelerate the process for the ones applying for visa from their countries. 

Doing it this way, you won't read anymore those messages from Mexicans returning to their land because they have no papers. They can try to come again, but with their visa this time, and enjoy those rights you admire so much as I do.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

luchitociencia said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> I will tell to a group of "cuates" to jump your fence and get into your property and set over there. They can build their tent and use your land as theirs. You won't have any objection because you preach their UNaliebale rights to life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> If I heard any complaint from you because those Mexicans living inside your property, then I will be the first one to kick your dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously do not understand the equation.  Nobody is jumping anybody's fence to use property as if it belong to the fence jumper.  The concept of *unalienable *Rights is enshrined in the words of the Declaration of Independence (the holiday we celebrated just yesterday):
> 
> "_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_..."
> 
> OBVIOUSLY, this could not apply to only citizens of the United States.  Such a country did not exist.  Furthermore, after the Constitution was ratified, people came from every corner of the world to engage in free enterprise here.  Only whites could be become citizens and enjoy certain privileges.  AND it would not be until all the founders and framers were dead and buried before the United States Supreme Court* illegally* granted "_plenary powers_" to Congress on this issue.  You see, our Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *authority* to bestow upon any other branch of government any powers.   It's a state's rights issue.  People engage in free enterprise.  Any law, at any level (city, county, state, or federal) that jeopardizes that Right of Liberty is null and void IF you support the original meaning of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point is that those words "_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_..." were mentioned for US citizens inside the US land.
> 
> This is to say, TODAY under the new laws of immigration, in order for a foreign to enjoy the same phrase, he must first be invited (obtain visa) to reside in the US.
> 
> Such phrase won't apply to invaders.
> 
> You see, at the beginning , when this country was in need of hand work to produce in this land, people from other places were welcomed.
> 
> But, laws change in accord to necessity, and there was a moment when new regulations about who can come and who can't was to be established. Something similar to the biblical narration where at the beginning brothers were to have their sisters and half sisters are their wives. But, later, when population was greater in number and diverse, a new regulation took place and marriages between brothers and sisters weren't allowed anymore.
> 
> You can't compare the immigration system of two centuries ago with today's. Both are different and rule in accord to the needs of the country.
> 
> It is very sad with what is going on in many countries, but also there is an abuse of the immigration system vacuum where people from other countries enter to the US breaking the law. You see, the US accepts thousands of people every year. These people fill up all the requirements asked in order to obtain their visa. They are welcomed by the US government and the law of immigration works perfectly.
> 
> However, the law breakers come illegally and later they demand to change their status even "before" the ones who are doing the same process but legally from their countries.
> 
> Corrupt attorneys manipulate the system in order to make profit, and they are the ones who also promote the illegal immigration.
> 
> To start, I would freeze all immigration transaction from illegal immigrants who came without visa and the ones who came with visa of tourist or student and their visas are not valid anymore and they want to obtain their residence anyway.
> 
> A complete freeze to all those cases, and make the immigration department to concentrate as priority with all the cases which are pending from people who are applying for visas legally from their countries.
> 
> Any illegal immigrant who is caught to be deported without the waste of a court case. Making the system as simple as it can be, will make it more effective to accelerate the process for the ones applying for visa from their countries.
> 
> Doing it this way, you won't read anymore those messages from Mexicans returning to their land because they have no papers. They can try to come again, but with their visa this time, and enjoy those rights you admire so much as I do.
Click to expand...



Are you stupid or what?  I refuted your first sentence BEFORE you made it.  *There were NO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WAS RATIFIED*.   WTF?  Are you really that uneducated?

Until I see some foreigners with guns telling employers to hire a foreigner, your language calling them invaders is utter nonsense.  The rest of your post is a waste of bandwidth and is so ludicrous that it doesn't merit any response except to say that before ANY of that happening, Joe Biden would change parties and endorse the MAGA agenda.  Put simply, it ain't gonna happen.

Nobody is coming into the United States and then demanding their status be changed.  Dumb asses like you think one must be a citizen in order to have *unalienable* Rights...  then YOUR politicians oblige you, creating a path for citizenship - and the foreigners become political leaders and kick your dumb ass to the curb.


----------



## San Souci

Porter Rockwell said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
Click to expand...

Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?


----------



## Gdjjr

luchitociencia said:


> then I will be the first one to kick your dumb ass.


You might try- but, it won't change the facts. Will it?


----------



## Gdjjr

San Souci said:


> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?


Now that's an erudite statement.


----------



## Gdjjr

luchitociencia said:


> Point is that those words "_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_..." were mentioned for US citizens inside the US land.


It wasn't a "mention"- it simply articulated the Truth- ALL men- there is no caveat to ALL- THAT is the point.
You want to move the goal posts in a game already played.
Your improper Public Education has failed, not only you, but humanity in general.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

San Souci said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?
Click to expand...


Not sure what that reply had to do with what you quoted.  The biggest MAGA supporters face is that they cannot differentiate between citizenship and the *unalienable* Rights of man.  Just because other people exercise their Rights does not put you at risk.  It does not cost you a job; it does not jeopardize your culture; it has no negative impact on your economy.  The part that MAGA supporters miss is that in their own mantra, they miss the truth.  The key word is AGAIN.  Make America Great AGAIN.  That implies it was once great.  So, instead of repealing laws back to the point when America worked and was great, the MAGA guys want to enact more and more laws, giving the bigger and more intrusive government more and more power.  And the powers that be that run the government disagree with the MAGA concept.  You cannot pass enough laws to protect you from yourself.


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter Rockwell said:


> Not sure what that reply had to do with what you quoted. The biggest MAGA supporters face is that they cannot differentiate between citizenship and the *unalienable* Rights of man. Just because other people exercise their Rights does not put you at risk. It does not cost you a job; it does not jeopardize your culture; it has no negative impact on your economy. The part that MAGA supporters miss is that in their own mantra, they miss the truth. The key word is AGAIN. Make America Great AGAIN. That implies it was once great. So, instead of repealing laws back to the point when America worked and was great, the MAGA guys want to enact more and more laws, giving the bigger and more intrusive government more and more power. And the powers that be that run the government disagree with the MAGA concept. You cannot pass enough laws to protect you from yourself.


BUMP!


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ... Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.


Maybe because even the rubes on your white supremacist, anti-Semite compound realized that any such thing would run afoul of the First Amendment? 

We've never had an "official language" and we never will. We don't need one. English is, and will remain, the dominant language in The United States.


----------



## San Souci

Porter Rockwell said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that reply had to do with what you quoted.  The biggest MAGA supporters face is that they cannot differentiate between citizenship and the *unalienable* Rights of man.  Just because other people exercise their Rights does not put you at risk.  It does not cost you a job; it does not jeopardize your culture; it has no negative impact on your economy.  The part that MAGA supporters miss is that in their own mantra, they miss the truth.  The key word is AGAIN.  Make America Great AGAIN.  That implies it was once great.  So, instead of repealing laws back to the point when America worked and was great, the MAGA guys want to enact more and more laws, giving the bigger and more intrusive government more and more power.  And the powers that be that run the government disagree with the MAGA concept.  You cannot pass enough laws to protect you from yourself.
Click to expand...

I just don't want hoards of ILLEGALS pouring into this country to go on welfare. There is a PROCESS for Immigration.


----------



## San Souci

Gdjjr said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's an erudite statement.
Click to expand...

It sure made sense. Glad ya agree.


----------



## Gdjjr

San Souci said:


> It sure made sense. Glad ya agree.


Yes. Comparing apples and oranges is an erudite offering.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because even the rubes on your white supremacist, anti-Semite compound realized that any such thing would run afoul of the First Amendment?
> 
> We've never had an "official language" and we never will. We don't need one. English is, and will remain, the dominant language in The United States.
Click to expand...


You waste too much time trying to start pissing contests.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

San Souci said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that reply had to do with what you quoted.  The biggest MAGA supporters face is that they cannot differentiate between citizenship and the *unalienable* Rights of man.  Just because other people exercise their Rights does not put you at risk.  It does not cost you a job; it does not jeopardize your culture; it has no negative impact on your economy.  The part that MAGA supporters miss is that in their own mantra, they miss the truth.  The key word is AGAIN.  Make America Great AGAIN.  That implies it was once great.  So, instead of repealing laws back to the point when America worked and was great, the MAGA guys want to enact more and more laws, giving the bigger and more intrusive government more and more power.  And the powers that be that run the government disagree with the MAGA concept.  You cannot pass enough laws to protect you from yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't want hoards of ILLEGALS pouring into this country to go on welfare. There is a PROCESS for Immigration.
Click to expand...


No matter how many times the MAGA supporters are educated on this, they still deny the facts.

1) Immigration = citizenship

2)  Foreigners, even under the *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment do not automatically qualify for the _benefits and privileges_ of citizenship  (the corrupt courts did defy this by saying education was a "right,")  but then again under the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court erroneously thinks the government is in the "_rights_" granting business

3)  *Unalienable* Rights do not depend citizenship.  Guest workers should not be subject to any "_process_." * Unalienable* Rights exist for a reason.  Just as we reject gun control and the government telling us what we can read, what movies we can watch, and what religion we have to belong to, the same is true for our Freedom of Association.  So, foreigners have the *unalienable* Right of Liberty; individuals have a Freedom of Association and the only "_process_" The Constitution recognizes is if those foreigners want to become citizens

4)  Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for welfare.  At least study the facts:









						Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits?
					

<p>Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits? </p>




					www.boston25news.com
				




Yeah, there is a "_process_" for immigrants *IF* they choose to become citizens.  It is called naturalization, but to be blunt, we don't need any more citizens from foreign countries.  Let them come here, exercise their God given Rights, work and return home.  What you want ends with the foreigner becoming a citizen and then voting you into oblivion.


----------



## San Souci

Porter Rockwell said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that reply had to do with what you quoted.  The biggest MAGA supporters face is that they cannot differentiate between citizenship and the *unalienable* Rights of man.  Just because other people exercise their Rights does not put you at risk.  It does not cost you a job; it does not jeopardize your culture; it has no negative impact on your economy.  The part that MAGA supporters miss is that in their own mantra, they miss the truth.  The key word is AGAIN.  Make America Great AGAIN.  That implies it was once great.  So, instead of repealing laws back to the point when America worked and was great, the MAGA guys want to enact more and more laws, giving the bigger and more intrusive government more and more power.  And the powers that be that run the government disagree with the MAGA concept.  You cannot pass enough laws to protect you from yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't want hoards of ILLEGALS pouring into this country to go on welfare. There is a PROCESS for Immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times the MAGA supporters are educated on this, they still deny the facts.
> 
> 1) Immigration = citizenship
> 
> 2)  Foreigners, even under the *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment do not automatically qualify for the _benefits and privileges_ of citizenship  (the corrupt courts did defy this by saying education was a "right,")  but then again under the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court erroneously thinks the government is in the "_rights_" granting business
> 
> 3)  *Unalienable* Rights do not depend citizenship.  Guest workers should not be subject to any "_process_." * Unalienable* Rights exist for a reason.  Just as we reject gun control and the government telling us what we can read, what movies we can watch, and what religion we have to belong to, the same is true for our Freedom of Association.  So, foreigners have the *unalienable* Right of Liberty; individuals have a Freedom of Association and the only "_process_" The Constitution recognizes is if those foreigners want to become citizens
> 
> 4)  Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for welfare.  At least study the facts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits?
> 
> 
> <p>Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits? </p>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.boston25news.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a "_process_" for immigrants *IF* they choose to become citizens.  It is called naturalization, but to be blunt, we don't need any more citizens from foreign countries.  Let them come here, exercise their God given Rights, work and return home.  What you want ends with the foreigner becoming a citizen and then voting you into oblivion.
Click to expand...

No. I want all foreigners kept OUT of here. No "Student Visas". No Work Visas. No Divirsity Lottery. No Chain Migration. No anchor Babies. In other words , No English ,No Skills , NO DICE!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

San Souci said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that reply had to do with what you quoted.  The biggest MAGA supporters face is that they cannot differentiate between citizenship and the *unalienable* Rights of man.  Just because other people exercise their Rights does not put you at risk.  It does not cost you a job; it does not jeopardize your culture; it has no negative impact on your economy.  The part that MAGA supporters miss is that in their own mantra, they miss the truth.  The key word is AGAIN.  Make America Great AGAIN.  That implies it was once great.  So, instead of repealing laws back to the point when America worked and was great, the MAGA guys want to enact more and more laws, giving the bigger and more intrusive government more and more power.  And the powers that be that run the government disagree with the MAGA concept.  You cannot pass enough laws to protect you from yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't want hoards of ILLEGALS pouring into this country to go on welfare. There is a PROCESS for Immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times the MAGA supporters are educated on this, they still deny the facts.
> 
> 1) Immigration = citizenship
> 
> 2)  Foreigners, even under the *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment do not automatically qualify for the _benefits and privileges_ of citizenship  (the corrupt courts did defy this by saying education was a "right,")  but then again under the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court erroneously thinks the government is in the "_rights_" granting business
> 
> 3)  *Unalienable* Rights do not depend citizenship.  Guest workers should not be subject to any "_process_." * Unalienable* Rights exist for a reason.  Just as we reject gun control and the government telling us what we can read, what movies we can watch, and what religion we have to belong to, the same is true for our Freedom of Association.  So, foreigners have the *unalienable* Right of Liberty; individuals have a Freedom of Association and the only "_process_" The Constitution recognizes is if those foreigners want to become citizens
> 
> 4)  Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for welfare.  At least study the facts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits?
> 
> 
> <p>Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits? </p>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.boston25news.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a "_process_" for immigrants *IF* they choose to become citizens.  It is called naturalization, but to be blunt, we don't need any more citizens from foreign countries.  Let them come here, exercise their God given Rights, work and return home.  What you want ends with the foreigner becoming a citizen and then voting you into oblivion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I want all foreigners kept OUT of here. No "Student Visas". No Work Visas. No Divirsity Lottery. No Chain Migration. No anchor Babies. In other words , No English ,No Skills , NO DICE!
Click to expand...


If you were going to go that far, you should eliminate those who buy into America, take up seats in our universities, invest in American corporations and divert the profits to foreign countries.  Simply put: you don't need the rich foreigners either.

You miss the big picture.  Foreigners and their supporters outnumber you.  What you are wanting is not going to happen.  We did this to ourselves incrementally.  We did it, not the foreigners.  We did.  Americans got it in their head we are all one big happy family and that America represents some multicultural hodge podge of races, religions, creeds, political view points, sexual orientations, etc., etc.  The only people *not inclusive* of this NEW WORLD ORDER / ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT is the Posterity of the framers of the Constitution of the United States.  We are the minority.  

We exacerbate the problem by thinking we can vote ourselves back into power.  Let me give you a reality check.  There is a race war going on right now.  Marxists called the BLM are taking money from corporations and then the BLM telling their people to boycott the corporations that were stupid enough to donate to this phony cause.  See how we're screwing ourselves?  Now, today most of the people reading this will run down to Walmart this week and buy stuff because they think it's cheaper than some other store.  You might do the same.  Walmart was convicted of *knowingly* hiring subcontractors that employed undocumented workers.  So, at the front end, Walmart makes it appear that a price is low, but then they use their profits to donate to BLM and *knowingly* hire subcontractors that employ undocumented workers.  You have the ability to research and find out who is financing the evils you complain about, but you'd rather be here bitching and promoting an idea that won't work.  I'm obliged to oppose you because your* proposed solutions* end up costing me my God given Rights.  AND, to add insult to injury, what little has been done in the name of fighting the people you don't like has been more costly to the Freedoms and Liberties to the American people than to any group of foreigners.  It's time you rethink your position.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because even the rubes on your white supremacist, anti-Semite compound realized that any such thing would run afoul of the First Amendment?
> 
> We've never had an "official language" and we never will. We don't need one. English is, and will remain, the dominant language in The United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You waste too much time trying to start pissing contests.
Click to expand...

You mentioned trying to make an official language for The United States, and I pointed out the futility of such an effort.


----------



## Unkotare

San Souci said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that reply had to do with what you quoted.  The biggest MAGA supporters face is that they cannot differentiate between citizenship and the *unalienable* Rights of man.  Just because other people exercise their Rights does not put you at risk.  It does not cost you a job; it does not jeopardize your culture; it has no negative impact on your economy.  The part that MAGA supporters miss is that in their own mantra, they miss the truth.  The key word is AGAIN.  Make America Great AGAIN.  That implies it was once great.  So, instead of repealing laws back to the point when America worked and was great, the MAGA guys want to enact more and more laws, giving the bigger and more intrusive government more and more power.  And the powers that be that run the government disagree with the MAGA concept.  You cannot pass enough laws to protect you from yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't want hoards of ILLEGALS pouring into this country to go on welfare. There is a PROCESS for Immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times the MAGA supporters are educated on this, they still deny the facts.
> 
> 1) Immigration = citizenship
> 
> 2)  Foreigners, even under the *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment do not automatically qualify for the _benefits and privileges_ of citizenship  (the corrupt courts did defy this by saying education was a "right,")  but then again under the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court erroneously thinks the government is in the "_rights_" granting business
> 
> 3)  *Unalienable* Rights do not depend citizenship.  Guest workers should not be subject to any "_process_." * Unalienable* Rights exist for a reason.  Just as we reject gun control and the government telling us what we can read, what movies we can watch, and what religion we have to belong to, the same is true for our Freedom of Association.  So, foreigners have the *unalienable* Right of Liberty; individuals have a Freedom of Association and the only "_process_" The Constitution recognizes is if those foreigners want to become citizens
> 
> 4)  Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for welfare.  At least study the facts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits?
> 
> 
> <p>Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits? </p>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.boston25news.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a "_process_" for immigrants *IF* they choose to become citizens.  It is called naturalization, but to be blunt, we don't need any more citizens from foreign countries.  Let them come here, exercise their God given Rights, work and return home.  What you want ends with the foreigner becoming a citizen and then voting you into oblivion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I want all foreigners kept OUT of here. No "Student Visas". No Work Visas. No Divirsity Lottery. No Chain Migration. No anchor Babies. In other words , No English ,No Skills , NO DICE!
Click to expand...

Now that you and yours are already here?


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...There is a race war going on right now.  ...


There is no "race war" going on, there are only those who desperately want there to be one. The democrats want one because it would just be another means of control. White supremacists assholes want one because at heart they are chicken shit cowards who feeeeeel that making other people 'scared' will herd them into their camp. Worthless idiots on both sides don't care about or understand America. They only value their narrow little interests.


----------



## San Souci

Unkotare said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that reply had to do with what you quoted.  The biggest MAGA supporters face is that they cannot differentiate between citizenship and the *unalienable* Rights of man.  Just because other people exercise their Rights does not put you at risk.  It does not cost you a job; it does not jeopardize your culture; it has no negative impact on your economy.  The part that MAGA supporters miss is that in their own mantra, they miss the truth.  The key word is AGAIN.  Make America Great AGAIN.  That implies it was once great.  So, instead of repealing laws back to the point when America worked and was great, the MAGA guys want to enact more and more laws, giving the bigger and more intrusive government more and more power.  And the powers that be that run the government disagree with the MAGA concept.  You cannot pass enough laws to protect you from yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't want hoards of ILLEGALS pouring into this country to go on welfare. There is a PROCESS for Immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times the MAGA supporters are educated on this, they still deny the facts.
> 
> 1) Immigration = citizenship
> 
> 2)  Foreigners, even under the *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment do not automatically qualify for the _benefits and privileges_ of citizenship  (the corrupt courts did defy this by saying education was a "right,")  but then again under the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court erroneously thinks the government is in the "_rights_" granting business
> 
> 3)  *Unalienable* Rights do not depend citizenship.  Guest workers should not be subject to any "_process_." * Unalienable* Rights exist for a reason.  Just as we reject gun control and the government telling us what we can read, what movies we can watch, and what religion we have to belong to, the same is true for our Freedom of Association.  So, foreigners have the *unalienable* Right of Liberty; individuals have a Freedom of Association and the only "_process_" The Constitution recognizes is if those foreigners want to become citizens
> 
> 4)  Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for welfare.  At least study the facts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits?
> 
> 
> <p>Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits? </p>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.boston25news.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a "_process_" for immigrants *IF* they choose to become citizens.  It is called naturalization, but to be blunt, we don't need any more citizens from foreign countries.  Let them come here, exercise their God given Rights, work and return home.  What you want ends with the foreigner becoming a citizen and then voting you into oblivion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I want all foreigners kept OUT of here. No "Student Visas". No Work Visas. No Divirsity Lottery. No Chain Migration. No anchor Babies. In other words , No English ,No Skills , NO DICE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that you and yours are already here?
Click to expand...

Dam Right. America FIRST. If other countries are oppressed ,let them clean up their own back yards.


----------



## San Souci

Porter Rockwell said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that reply had to do with what you quoted.  The biggest MAGA supporters face is that they cannot differentiate between citizenship and the *unalienable* Rights of man.  Just because other people exercise their Rights does not put you at risk.  It does not cost you a job; it does not jeopardize your culture; it has no negative impact on your economy.  The part that MAGA supporters miss is that in their own mantra, they miss the truth.  The key word is AGAIN.  Make America Great AGAIN.  That implies it was once great.  So, instead of repealing laws back to the point when America worked and was great, the MAGA guys want to enact more and more laws, giving the bigger and more intrusive government more and more power.  And the powers that be that run the government disagree with the MAGA concept.  You cannot pass enough laws to protect you from yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't want hoards of ILLEGALS pouring into this country to go on welfare. There is a PROCESS for Immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times the MAGA supporters are educated on this, they still deny the facts.
> 
> 1) Immigration = citizenship
> 
> 2)  Foreigners, even under the *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment do not automatically qualify for the _benefits and privileges_ of citizenship  (the corrupt courts did defy this by saying education was a "right,")  but then again under the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court erroneously thinks the government is in the "_rights_" granting business
> 
> 3)  *Unalienable* Rights do not depend citizenship.  Guest workers should not be subject to any "_process_." * Unalienable* Rights exist for a reason.  Just as we reject gun control and the government telling us what we can read, what movies we can watch, and what religion we have to belong to, the same is true for our Freedom of Association.  So, foreigners have the *unalienable* Right of Liberty; individuals have a Freedom of Association and the only "_process_" The Constitution recognizes is if those foreigners want to become citizens
> 
> 4)  Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for welfare.  At least study the facts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits?
> 
> 
> <p>Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits? </p>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.boston25news.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a "_process_" for immigrants *IF* they choose to become citizens.  It is called naturalization, but to be blunt, we don't need any more citizens from foreign countries.  Let them come here, exercise their God given Rights, work and return home.  What you want ends with the foreigner becoming a citizen and then voting you into oblivion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I want all foreigners kept OUT of here. No "Student Visas". No Work Visas. No Divirsity Lottery. No Chain Migration. No anchor Babies. In other words , No English ,No Skills , NO DICE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were going to go that far, you should eliminate those who buy into America, take up seats in our universities, invest in American corporations and divert the profits to foreign countries.  Simply put: you don't need the rich foreigners either.
> 
> You miss the big picture.  Foreigners and their supporters outnumber you.  What you are wanting is not going to happen.  We did this to ourselves incrementally.  We did it, not the foreigners.  We did.  Americans got it in their head we are all one big happy family and that America represents some multicultural hodge podge of races, religions, creeds, political view points, sexual orientations, etc., etc.  The only people *not inclusive* of this NEW WORLD ORDER / ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT is the Posterity of the framers of the Constitution of the United States.  We are the minority.
> 
> We exacerbate the problem by thinking we can vote ourselves back into power.  Let me give you a reality check.  There is a race war going on right now.  Marxists called the BLM are taking money from corporations and then the BLM telling their people to boycott the corporations that were stupid enough to donate to this phony cause.  See how we're screwing ourselves?  Now, today most of the people reading this will run down to Walmart this week and buy stuff because they think it's cheaper than some other store.  You might do the same.  Walmart was convicted of *knowingly* hiring subcontractors that employed undocumented workers.  So, at the front end, Walmart makes it appear that a price is low, but then they use their profits to donate to BLM and *knowingly* hire subcontractors that employ undocumented workers.  You have the ability to research and find out who is financing the evils you complain about, but you'd rather be here bitching and promoting an idea that won't work.  I'm obliged to oppose you because your* proposed solutions* end up costing me my God given Rights.  AND, to add insult to injury, what little has been done in the name of fighting the people you don't like has been more costly to the Freedoms and Liberties to the American people than to any group of foreigners.  It's time you rethink your position.
Click to expand...

I won't. No ENGLISH .No DICE. ---On the other hand, this should start at the TOP. Anyone ,from Mom and Pop business to Huge corporations , should be severely sanctioned for using illegal foreign Labor.


----------



## SeaGal

luchitociencia said:


> You can't compare the immigration system of two centuries ago with today's. Both are different and rule in accord to the needs of the country.
> 
> It is very sad with what is going on in many countries, but also there is an abuse of the immigration system vacuum where people from other countries enter to the US breaking the law. You see, the US accepts thousands of people every year. These people fill up all the requirements asked in order to obtain their visa. They are welcomed by the US government and the law of immigration works perfectly.



This is an excellent point and one that should appeal to the 'constitution is a living document' folks.  Times and needs change - earlier immigrants had it much rougher with far fewer support systems financed by the rest of the citizenry.   We've welcomed nearly a million legal immigrants annually over last the two decades alone - that is a very generous immigration policy.  One of, if not the most generous policy among all nations.

Some random thoughts on other posts:

I don't get the 'open borders' mantra.  We can have open borders or we can have a welfare state - not both. 
We can suspend the rule of law and have chaos and tyranny or we can have a well-ordered lawful society beneficial to its citizens.  

The DOI was in part philosophical and a list of grievances, not a governing document - the COTUS was the contract formed between the citizens of the United States and their government...which establishes the laws of this nation.  The preamble of which reads;

_'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.' _

To those who claim requiring that immigrants come through the front door instead of sneaking in through the back door is racist - I say balderdash!  Hispanic is not a race (their language is Spanish for goodness sakes!) - they are of European descent, the progeny of Spanish conquistadors who decimated the native populations of the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America.  They are Caucasians - just like the rest of Europe, the Middle East and parts of Northern Africa.

Back to the DOI's - 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' - what about the rights of those who are forced to contribute their personal property in the form of federal and state taxes on wages to pay for those who amount to 'gate-crashers' without regard to the laws the rest of us have to follow.  How is that liberty enhancing?  Yes, human rights matter, but your rights stop at my pocket.


----------



## beautress

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please take back your Mexicans
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 319984
> 
> View attachment 319988
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're going to build a wall to keep us out aren't they?
Click to expand...

They already shut the door on AZ.


----------



## Unkotare

San Souci said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that reply had to do with what you quoted.  The biggest MAGA supporters face is that they cannot differentiate between citizenship and the *unalienable* Rights of man.  Just because other people exercise their Rights does not put you at risk.  It does not cost you a job; it does not jeopardize your culture; it has no negative impact on your economy.  The part that MAGA supporters miss is that in their own mantra, they miss the truth.  The key word is AGAIN.  Make America Great AGAIN.  That implies it was once great.  So, instead of repealing laws back to the point when America worked and was great, the MAGA guys want to enact more and more laws, giving the bigger and more intrusive government more and more power.  And the powers that be that run the government disagree with the MAGA concept.  You cannot pass enough laws to protect you from yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't want hoards of ILLEGALS pouring into this country to go on welfare. There is a PROCESS for Immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times the MAGA supporters are educated on this, they still deny the facts.
> 
> 1) Immigration = citizenship
> 
> 2)  Foreigners, even under the *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment do not automatically qualify for the _benefits and privileges_ of citizenship  (the corrupt courts did defy this by saying education was a "right,")  but then again under the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court erroneously thinks the government is in the "_rights_" granting business
> 
> 3)  *Unalienable* Rights do not depend citizenship.  Guest workers should not be subject to any "_process_." * Unalienable* Rights exist for a reason.  Just as we reject gun control and the government telling us what we can read, what movies we can watch, and what religion we have to belong to, the same is true for our Freedom of Association.  So, foreigners have the *unalienable* Right of Liberty; individuals have a Freedom of Association and the only "_process_" The Constitution recognizes is if those foreigners want to become citizens
> 
> 4)  Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for welfare.  At least study the facts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits?
> 
> 
> <p>Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits? </p>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.boston25news.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a "_process_" for immigrants *IF* they choose to become citizens.  It is called naturalization, but to be blunt, we don't need any more citizens from foreign countries.  Let them come here, exercise their God given Rights, work and return home.  What you want ends with the foreigner becoming a citizen and then voting you into oblivion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I want all foreigners kept OUT of here. No "Student Visas". No Work Visas. No Divirsity Lottery. No Chain Migration. No anchor Babies. In other words , No English ,No Skills , NO DICE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that you and yours are already here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dam Right. America FIRST.....
Click to expand...

You can't put America first until you first understand America. You don't seem to.


----------



## Unkotare

San Souci said:


> ...
> I won't. No ENGLISH .No DICE. ---....


And what about American citizens who don't speak perfect English? Where do they go in your self-indulgent fantasy? I wonder if all your ancestors spoke perfect English when they first arrived.


----------



## Unkotare

The largest ethnic background in the US is people of German descent. Most of the first ancestors of some 50 million Americans spoke German but didn't speak perfect English when they first arrived here. Tens of millions more spoke other non-English languages for the first two generations or so. How many of those crying about "No Dice!" today stem from people who spoke primarily or exclusively German, Italian, Swedish, French, etc.?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because even the rubes on your white supremacist, anti-Semite compound realized that any such thing would run afoul of the First Amendment?
> 
> We've never had an "official language" and we never will. We don't need one. English is, and will remain, the dominant language in The United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You waste too much time trying to start pissing contests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mentioned trying to make an official language for The United States, and I pointed out the futility of such an effort.
Click to expand...


You need some new material


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...There is a race war going on right now.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "race war" going on, there are only those who desperately want there to be one. The democrats want one because it would just be another means of control. White supremacists assholes want one because at heart they are chicken shit cowards who feeeeeel that making other people 'scared' will herd them into their camp. Worthless idiots on both sides don't care about or understand America. They only value their narrow little interests.
Click to expand...


You need some new material


----------



## Porter Rockwell

San Souci said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that reply had to do with what you quoted.  The biggest MAGA supporters face is that they cannot differentiate between citizenship and the *unalienable* Rights of man.  Just because other people exercise their Rights does not put you at risk.  It does not cost you a job; it does not jeopardize your culture; it has no negative impact on your economy.  The part that MAGA supporters miss is that in their own mantra, they miss the truth.  The key word is AGAIN.  Make America Great AGAIN.  That implies it was once great.  So, instead of repealing laws back to the point when America worked and was great, the MAGA guys want to enact more and more laws, giving the bigger and more intrusive government more and more power.  And the powers that be that run the government disagree with the MAGA concept.  You cannot pass enough laws to protect you from yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't want hoards of ILLEGALS pouring into this country to go on welfare. There is a PROCESS for Immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times the MAGA supporters are educated on this, they still deny the facts.
> 
> 1) Immigration = citizenship
> 
> 2)  Foreigners, even under the *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment do not automatically qualify for the _benefits and privileges_ of citizenship  (the corrupt courts did defy this by saying education was a "right,")  but then again under the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court erroneously thinks the government is in the "_rights_" granting business
> 
> 3)  *Unalienable* Rights do not depend citizenship.  Guest workers should not be subject to any "_process_." * Unalienable* Rights exist for a reason.  Just as we reject gun control and the government telling us what we can read, what movies we can watch, and what religion we have to belong to, the same is true for our Freedom of Association.  So, foreigners have the *unalienable* Right of Liberty; individuals have a Freedom of Association and the only "_process_" The Constitution recognizes is if those foreigners want to become citizens
> 
> 4)  Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for welfare.  At least study the facts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits?
> 
> 
> <p>Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits? </p>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.boston25news.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a "_process_" for immigrants *IF* they choose to become citizens.  It is called naturalization, but to be blunt, we don't need any more citizens from foreign countries.  Let them come here, exercise their God given Rights, work and return home.  What you want ends with the foreigner becoming a citizen and then voting you into oblivion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I want all foreigners kept OUT of here. No "Student Visas". No Work Visas. No Divirsity Lottery. No Chain Migration. No anchor Babies. In other words , No English ,No Skills , NO DICE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were going to go that far, you should eliminate those who buy into America, take up seats in our universities, invest in American corporations and divert the profits to foreign countries.  Simply put: you don't need the rich foreigners either.
> 
> You miss the big picture.  Foreigners and their supporters outnumber you.  What you are wanting is not going to happen.  We did this to ourselves incrementally.  We did it, not the foreigners.  We did.  Americans got it in their head we are all one big happy family and that America represents some multicultural hodge podge of races, religions, creeds, political view points, sexual orientations, etc., etc.  The only people *not inclusive* of this NEW WORLD ORDER / ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT is the Posterity of the framers of the Constitution of the United States.  We are the minority.
> 
> We exacerbate the problem by thinking we can vote ourselves back into power.  Let me give you a reality check.  There is a race war going on right now.  Marxists called the BLM are taking money from corporations and then the BLM telling their people to boycott the corporations that were stupid enough to donate to this phony cause.  See how we're screwing ourselves?  Now, today most of the people reading this will run down to Walmart this week and buy stuff because they think it's cheaper than some other store.  You might do the same.  Walmart was convicted of *knowingly* hiring subcontractors that employed undocumented workers.  So, at the front end, Walmart makes it appear that a price is low, but then they use their profits to donate to BLM and *knowingly* hire subcontractors that employ undocumented workers.  You have the ability to research and find out who is financing the evils you complain about, but you'd rather be here bitching and promoting an idea that won't work.  I'm obliged to oppose you because your* proposed solutions* end up costing me my God given Rights.  AND, to add insult to injury, what little has been done in the name of fighting the people you don't like has been more costly to the Freedoms and Liberties to the American people than to any group of foreigners.  It's time you rethink your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't. No ENGLISH .No DICE. ---On the other hand, this should start at the TOP. Anyone ,from Mom and Pop business to Huge corporations , should be severely sanctioned for using illegal foreign Labor.
Click to expand...


So, you've pretty much told the framers to go to Hell.  Got it.


----------



## San Souci

Porter Rockwell said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that reply had to do with what you quoted.  The biggest MAGA supporters face is that they cannot differentiate between citizenship and the *unalienable* Rights of man.  Just because other people exercise their Rights does not put you at risk.  It does not cost you a job; it does not jeopardize your culture; it has no negative impact on your economy.  The part that MAGA supporters miss is that in their own mantra, they miss the truth.  The key word is AGAIN.  Make America Great AGAIN.  That implies it was once great.  So, instead of repealing laws back to the point when America worked and was great, the MAGA guys want to enact more and more laws, giving the bigger and more intrusive government more and more power.  And the powers that be that run the government disagree with the MAGA concept.  You cannot pass enough laws to protect you from yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't want hoards of ILLEGALS pouring into this country to go on welfare. There is a PROCESS for Immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times the MAGA supporters are educated on this, they still deny the facts.
> 
> 1) Immigration = citizenship
> 
> 2)  Foreigners, even under the *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment do not automatically qualify for the _benefits and privileges_ of citizenship  (the corrupt courts did defy this by saying education was a "right,")  but then again under the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court erroneously thinks the government is in the "_rights_" granting business
> 
> 3)  *Unalienable* Rights do not depend citizenship.  Guest workers should not be subject to any "_process_." * Unalienable* Rights exist for a reason.  Just as we reject gun control and the government telling us what we can read, what movies we can watch, and what religion we have to belong to, the same is true for our Freedom of Association.  So, foreigners have the *unalienable* Right of Liberty; individuals have a Freedom of Association and the only "_process_" The Constitution recognizes is if those foreigners want to become citizens
> 
> 4)  Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for welfare.  At least study the facts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits?
> 
> 
> <p>Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits? </p>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.boston25news.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a "_process_" for immigrants *IF* they choose to become citizens.  It is called naturalization, but to be blunt, we don't need any more citizens from foreign countries.  Let them come here, exercise their God given Rights, work and return home.  What you want ends with the foreigner becoming a citizen and then voting you into oblivion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I want all foreigners kept OUT of here. No "Student Visas". No Work Visas. No Divirsity Lottery. No Chain Migration. No anchor Babies. In other words , No English ,No Skills , NO DICE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were going to go that far, you should eliminate those who buy into America, take up seats in our universities, invest in American corporations and divert the profits to foreign countries.  Simply put: you don't need the rich foreigners either.
> 
> You miss the big picture.  Foreigners and their supporters outnumber you.  What you are wanting is not going to happen.  We did this to ourselves incrementally.  We did it, not the foreigners.  We did.  Americans got it in their head we are all one big happy family and that America represents some multicultural hodge podge of races, religions, creeds, political view points, sexual orientations, etc., etc.  The only people *not inclusive* of this NEW WORLD ORDER / ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT is the Posterity of the framers of the Constitution of the United States.  We are the minority.
> 
> We exacerbate the problem by thinking we can vote ourselves back into power.  Let me give you a reality check.  There is a race war going on right now.  Marxists called the BLM are taking money from corporations and then the BLM telling their people to boycott the corporations that were stupid enough to donate to this phony cause.  See how we're screwing ourselves?  Now, today most of the people reading this will run down to Walmart this week and buy stuff because they think it's cheaper than some other store.  You might do the same.  Walmart was convicted of *knowingly* hiring subcontractors that employed undocumented workers.  So, at the front end, Walmart makes it appear that a price is low, but then they use their profits to donate to BLM and *knowingly* hire subcontractors that employ undocumented workers.  You have the ability to research and find out who is financing the evils you complain about, but you'd rather be here bitching and promoting an idea that won't work.  I'm obliged to oppose you because your* proposed solutions* end up costing me my God given Rights.  AND, to add insult to injury, what little has been done in the name of fighting the people you don't like has been more costly to the Freedoms and Liberties to the American people than to any group of foreigners.  It's time you rethink your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't. No ENGLISH .No DICE. ---On the other hand, this should start at the TOP. Anyone ,from Mom and Pop business to Huge corporations , should be severely sanctioned for using illegal foreign Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you've pretty much told the framers to go to Hell.  Got it.
Click to expand...

Nope. No "Got". I have told that stupid poem on Lady Liberty to go to Hell. It is time to say "NO MORE".


----------



## Unkotare

San Souci said:


> ... It is time to say "NO MORE".


Because your family is already here, right?


----------



## San Souci

Unkotare said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... It is time to say "NO MORE".
> 
> 
> 
> Because your family is already here, right?
Click to expand...

Yes. My old man was a LEGAL immigrant. Who spoke ENGLISH. Also Hebrew ,Polish ,and Greek.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

San Souci said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just uneducated vermin who speak no English.
> 
> 
> 
> Formal education is over rated. Look in the mirror for evidence.
> 
> People are human beings, some, like yourself pretend they are better than others, but, at the end of the day, you're much worse- you believe yourselves to be special and work hard at exposing that hypocrisy, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Harry S. Truman all have in common?  They were ALL presidents of the United States.  None of them had a college degree.
> 
> Patrick Henry was home schooled.
> 
> Other notable thinkers who did not have a lot of education were people like Thomas Edison.  He spent three months in high school.  Neither of the Wright brothers graduated high school.  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Steve Jobs did a year in college.  This is too easy.  I have a some 8 1/2  x 1s from years of going to school.  I learned much more at the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But these filthy illegals can't even read or write or SPEAK English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you better pray to God, Uncle Scam never takes a disliking to something you say or believe in.  You would be pretty much screwed.  Did I ever tell you about the time I tried to get the civilian militias to support a proposal to make English the official language in the United States?  It went over like a fart in Sunday school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh ,yes. Diversity. What a joke. Do they think this is the Balkens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what that reply had to do with what you quoted.  The biggest MAGA supporters face is that they cannot differentiate between citizenship and the *unalienable* Rights of man.  Just because other people exercise their Rights does not put you at risk.  It does not cost you a job; it does not jeopardize your culture; it has no negative impact on your economy.  The part that MAGA supporters miss is that in their own mantra, they miss the truth.  The key word is AGAIN.  Make America Great AGAIN.  That implies it was once great.  So, instead of repealing laws back to the point when America worked and was great, the MAGA guys want to enact more and more laws, giving the bigger and more intrusive government more and more power.  And the powers that be that run the government disagree with the MAGA concept.  You cannot pass enough laws to protect you from yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't want hoards of ILLEGALS pouring into this country to go on welfare. There is a PROCESS for Immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times the MAGA supporters are educated on this, they still deny the facts.
> 
> 1) Immigration = citizenship
> 
> 2)  Foreigners, even under the *illegally ratified* 14th Amendment do not automatically qualify for the _benefits and privileges_ of citizenship  (the corrupt courts did defy this by saying education was a "right,")  but then again under the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court erroneously thinks the government is in the "_rights_" granting business
> 
> 3)  *Unalienable* Rights do not depend citizenship.  Guest workers should not be subject to any "_process_." * Unalienable* Rights exist for a reason.  Just as we reject gun control and the government telling us what we can read, what movies we can watch, and what religion we have to belong to, the same is true for our Freedom of Association.  So, foreigners have the *unalienable* Right of Liberty; individuals have a Freedom of Association and the only "_process_" The Constitution recognizes is if those foreigners want to become citizens
> 
> 4)  Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for welfare.  At least study the facts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits?
> 
> 
> <p>Immigration: Can undocumented immigrants get federal public benefits? </p>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.boston25news.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a "_process_" for immigrants *IF* they choose to become citizens.  It is called naturalization, but to be blunt, we don't need any more citizens from foreign countries.  Let them come here, exercise their God given Rights, work and return home.  What you want ends with the foreigner becoming a citizen and then voting you into oblivion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I want all foreigners kept OUT of here. No "Student Visas". No Work Visas. No Divirsity Lottery. No Chain Migration. No anchor Babies. In other words , No English ,No Skills , NO DICE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were going to go that far, you should eliminate those who buy into America, take up seats in our universities, invest in American corporations and divert the profits to foreign countries.  Simply put: you don't need the rich foreigners either.
> 
> You miss the big picture.  Foreigners and their supporters outnumber you.  What you are wanting is not going to happen.  We did this to ourselves incrementally.  We did it, not the foreigners.  We did.  Americans got it in their head we are all one big happy family and that America represents some multicultural hodge podge of races, religions, creeds, political view points, sexual orientations, etc., etc.  The only people *not inclusive* of this NEW WORLD ORDER / ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT is the Posterity of the framers of the Constitution of the United States.  We are the minority.
> 
> We exacerbate the problem by thinking we can vote ourselves back into power.  Let me give you a reality check.  There is a race war going on right now.  Marxists called the BLM are taking money from corporations and then the BLM telling their people to boycott the corporations that were stupid enough to donate to this phony cause.  See how we're screwing ourselves?  Now, today most of the people reading this will run down to Walmart this week and buy stuff because they think it's cheaper than some other store.  You might do the same.  Walmart was convicted of *knowingly* hiring subcontractors that employed undocumented workers.  So, at the front end, Walmart makes it appear that a price is low, but then they use their profits to donate to BLM and *knowingly* hire subcontractors that employ undocumented workers.  You have the ability to research and find out who is financing the evils you complain about, but you'd rather be here bitching and promoting an idea that won't work.  I'm obliged to oppose you because your* proposed solutions* end up costing me my God given Rights.  AND, to add insult to injury, what little has been done in the name of fighting the people you don't like has been more costly to the Freedoms and Liberties to the American people than to any group of foreigners.  It's time you rethink your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't. No ENGLISH .No DICE. ---On the other hand, this should start at the TOP. Anyone ,from Mom and Pop business to Huge corporations , should be severely sanctioned for using illegal foreign Labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you've pretty much told the framers to go to Hell.  Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. No "Got". I have told that stupid poem on Lady Liberty to go to Hell. It is time to say "NO MORE".
Click to expand...


We're not talking about Lady Liberty.  We're talking about the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration of Independence put forth *unalienable* Rights that were codified into the Bill of Rights.   *IF*, and I tell you *IF* it were not for the 14th Amendment, you *might* be able to rely on Justice Roger Taney's ruling in the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision.  Bear in mind that the 14th Amendment was *illegally ratified* and is where your efforts would be better utilized.  

On one hand, the framers allowed people to come from all over the world to do business, not restricted by federal law as the Constitution gives only ONE area of authority over foreigners and that is naturalization.  On the other, Taney ruled that we, the people, meant those people of the white race in the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision - here are a few excerpts:

"_It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.  

...In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument. 

...Another of the early laws of which we have spoken, is the first militia law, which was passed in 1792, at the first session of the second Congress. The language of this law is equally plain and significant with the one just mentioned. It directs that every 'free able-bodied white male citizen' shall be enrolled in the militia. The word white is evidently used to exclude the African race, and the word 'citizen' to exclude unnaturalized foreigners; the latter forming no part of the sovereignty, owing it no allegiance, and therefore under no obligation to defend it. The African race, however, born in the country, did owe allegiance to the Government, whether they were slave or free; but it is repudiated, and rejected from the duties and obligations of citizenship in marked language._"









						DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




So, today your *proposed solutions *must be consistent with the 14th Amendment OR the Constitution of the United States as originally written and intended.  Without the 14th Amendment, STATES have the Right to allow who they want in.  With the 14th Amendment *your proposed solutions will not pass constitutional muster*.


----------



## Unkotare

San Souci said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... It is time to say "NO MORE".
> 
> 
> 
> Because your family is already here, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. My old man was a LEGAL immigrant. ....
Click to expand...

And now you don't want any more immigrants at all?


----------



## San Souci

Unkotare said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... It is time to say "NO MORE".
> 
> 
> 
> Because your family is already here, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. My old man was a LEGAL immigrant. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now you don't want any more immigrants at all?
Click to expand...

Try to follow. I want some LEGAL immigration. But they need three things. The ABILITY to be self supporting. NO welfare. 2nd. No English ,no entry.3rd. A basic knpwledge of our HISTORY.


----------



## Unkotare

San Souci said:


> ...
> Try to follow. I want some LEGAL immigration. But they need three things. The ABILITY to be self supporting. NO welfare. 2nd. No English ,no entry.3rd. A basic knpwledge of our HISTORY.


If that standard had been applied throughout American history, well over 200 million Americans today would not be here. Ignorant, illogical Know-Nothings have been around for a long time. Most ARE here because their ancestors were NOT held to those standards. It takes a special kind of stupid asshole to scramble through the door, slam it closed behind you, and immediately start shouting at those outside to go away because they are unworthy.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

San Souci said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... It is time to say "NO MORE".
> 
> 
> 
> Because your family is already here, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. My old man was a LEGAL immigrant. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now you don't want any more immigrants at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to follow. I want some LEGAL immigration. But they need three things. The ABILITY to be self supporting. NO welfare. 2nd. No English ,no entry.3rd. A basic knpwledge of our HISTORY.
Click to expand...


And that accomplishes what?  There is *NO* such thing as illegal immigration.  You either do the paperwork, background checks, physicals, interviews, etc. or you don't get papers.  It's that simple.  NOBODY is advocating citizenship for undocumented foreigners except the MAGA crowd.  Ironic!


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...  There is *NO* such thing as illegal immigration. ...


There obviously IS illegal immigration. Nationalization and immigration are NOT the same thing.


----------



## San Souci

Porter Rockwell said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... It is time to say "NO MORE".
> 
> 
> 
> Because your family is already here, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. My old man was a LEGAL immigrant. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now you don't want any more immigrants at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to follow. I want some LEGAL immigration. But they need three things. The ABILITY to be self supporting. NO welfare. 2nd. No English ,no entry.3rd. A basic knpwledge of our HISTORY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that accomplishes what?  There is *NO* such thing as illegal immigration.  You either do the paperwork, background checks, physicals, interviews, etc. or you don't get papers.  It's that simple.  NOBODY is advocating citizenship for undocumented foreigners except the MAGA crowd.  Ironic!
Click to expand...

Transference. Figures.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  There is *NO* such thing as illegal immigration. ...
> 
> 
> 
> There obviously IS illegal immigration. Nationalization and immigration are NOT the same thing.
Click to expand...



" _This term describes a person who enters a country for permanent residence from another country_. "




__





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

Definition of IMMIGRANT: This term describes a person who enters a country for permanent residence from another country.




					thelawdictionary.org
				




A permanent resident is a citizen

Even some lawyers giving immigration advice get it wrong (though they disagree with the "_illegal_" terminology):









						Black’s Law Dictionary: “Unlawful Immigrant” is correct, not “Illegal Immigrant”
					

The New York Times and a whole bunch of other respected media outlets still use the word “Illegal Immigrant” to describe human beings who are present in the United States without the au…




					amjolaw.com
				




Of course, if you never worked in immigration law, you really don't KNOW the law.  The word unlawful is wrong for two reasons:

1)  The United States Supreme Court said so AND

2)  Tea Party Republican, U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner introduced legislation to change the relevant statute from improper to unlawful. * IF* it were unlawful why would you need to change the law? 

Text - H.R.4437 - 109th Congress (2005-2006): Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005   See Section 203  THE BILL FAILED.  So, factually, those guys are neither _"illegal_" OR unlawful.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Looks like there are a couple "Sovereign Citizen" persons on this thread. 

The DoI was nothing more than a declaration to the King of England at the time, it even recognizes 
_That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed._
Unalienable/Inalienable rights does not grant a citizen from another country to legally/illegally enter the US without first obtaining authorization from their government to leave their country and from the other country's government to enter. It has always been that way, since 1606 those leaving England left with the Kings permission, as did the Germans, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. from their monarchies.

Even the Articles of Confederation made light of the "sovereignty" of the 13 states. ( Declares the purpose of the confederation: "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever." )

When the States allowed entry at their ports, the feds had requirements that those persons had to meet, and the ports were regulated by the federal law. If people were sick they were not allowed to exit the ship and were sent back. If the person was a pauper, vagabond, fugitive, etc, they were not allowed to depart the ship.

As to the 14th Amendment....It simply says that the state can't deny citizens or persons within their jurisdiction (inside their state lines) equal protection of the states laws.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> A permanent resident is a citizen


Wrong, a permanent resident is just that, a legal "resident", they are not a citizen. In order for an LPR to become a citizen, they must apply to do so and pass a basic history test.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Gdjjr said:


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


Why not finish your DoI quote? 



> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. *That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.*


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Liquid Reigns said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, a permanent resident is just that, a legal "resident", they are not a citizen. In order for an LPR to become a citizen, they must apply to do so and pass a basic history test.
Click to expand...


Wrong


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Liquid Reigns said:


> Looks like there are a couple "Sovereign Citizen" persons on this thread.
> 
> The DoI was nothing more than a declaration to the King of England at the time, it even recognizes
> _That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed._
> Unalienable/Inalienable rights does not grant a citizen from another country to legally/illegally enter the US without first obtaining authorization from their government to leave their country and from the other country's government to enter. It has always been that way, since 1606 those leaving England left with the Kings permission, as did the Germans, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. from their monarchies.
> 
> Even the Articles of Confederation made light of the "sovereignty" of the 13 states. ( Declares the purpose of the confederation: "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever." )
> 
> When the States allowed entry at their ports, the feds had requirements that those persons had to meet, and the ports were regulated by the federal law. If people were sick they were not allowed to exit the ship and were sent back. If the person was a pauper, vagabond, fugitive, etc, they were not allowed to depart the ship.
> 
> As to the 14th Amendment....It simply says that the state can't deny citizens or persons within their jurisdiction (inside their state lines) equal protection of the states laws.



Ask the author of the Declaration of Independence


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
> 
> YOu are jumping back and forth between universal arguments against our right to do that, and quibbling over historical details of how that power was developed.
> 
> 
> That is not the way to have an honest discussion.
Click to expand...


States, under original interpretation retained that right.  It's been asked and answered.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> 3)  If a person has Liberty, they have a Right to come to the United States.  Just because someone shows up in your neighborhood does not mean that they are your family
> 
> 5)  I gave a legal definition from *Black's Law Dictionary* for the word Liberty.  Black's is the most authoritative legal dictionary in the legal community



You are taking the word Liberty as used in the DoI out of its context. Liberty doesn't grant anybody a right to come to the US. Nothing in your provided Blacks Law Dictionary grants a person an ability to come to/enter the US without authorization.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like there are a couple "Sovereign Citizen" persons on this thread.
> 
> The DoI was nothing more than a declaration to the King of England at the time, it even recognizes
> _That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed._
> Unalienable/Inalienable rights does not grant a citizen from another country to legally/illegally enter the US without first obtaining authorization from their government to leave their country and from the other country's government to enter. It has always been that way, since 1606 those leaving England left with the Kings permission, as did the Germans, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. from their monarchies.
> 
> Even the Articles of Confederation made light of the "sovereignty" of the 13 states. ( Declares the purpose of the confederation: "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever." )
> 
> When the States allowed entry at their ports, the feds had requirements that those persons had to meet, and the ports were regulated by the federal law. If people were sick they were not allowed to exit the ship and were sent back. If the person was a pauper, vagabond, fugitive, etc, they were not allowed to depart the ship.
> 
> As to the 14th Amendment....It simply says that the state can't deny citizens or persons within their jurisdiction (inside their state lines) equal protection of the states laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the author of the Declaration of Independence
Click to expand...

Ask the author what?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, a permanent resident is just that, a legal "resident", they are not a citizen. In order for an LPR to become a citizen, they must apply to do so and pass a basic history test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
Click to expand...

Really? Do you even know what an LPR is? Do you know the hierarchy of immigration status?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
> 
> Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
> 
> Aaron Tippen had a song- _you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
> Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people.  Citizenship was restricted to them.  Yet foreigners continued to come here for* individual *enrichment.  AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have.  That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
> 
> YOu are jumping back and forth between universal arguments against our right to do that, and quibbling over historical details of how that power was developed.
> 
> 
> That is not the way to have an honest discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States, under original interpretation retained that right.  It's been asked and answered.
Click to expand...

The Articles of Confederation disagrees with your interpretation.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> If you believe what you just posted, you are the dumbest individual on USM.  *I've worked on two cases that made it to the United States Supreme Court *(insignificant cases in the grand scheme of things) and were won.  I have thirty six courtroom wins and never lost nor over-turned on appeal.  And your legal experience?


No you haven't Jimmy. You are a Sovereign Citizen, you are not a lawyer, you have no law license, nothing. LMFAO


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> I was a Seabee.


No Jimmy, you were not a seabee. You never served in the military. LMFAO


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> You do realize that having multiple screen names is against the rules.


He first started out as BuddyColt and then became Humorme (banned).


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Liquid Reigns said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, a permanent resident is just that, a legal "resident", they are not a citizen. In order for an LPR to become a citizen, they must apply to do so and pass a basic history test.
Click to expand...


Don't you work for the ADL?  What do you think the purpose of permanent residency is?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

I smell an ADL operative.  It's time to say bye to this thread.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> Don't you work for the ADL?  What do you think the purpose of permanent residency is?


Work for the ADL? LMFAO

Permenant residency allows a person to live here legally, they do not have to apply for citizenship and can stay as an LPR until they pass on. If they choose to apply for citizenship, they can, they don't have to. SHRUG

Come on Jimmy, I explained all this stuff to you already.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> I smell an ADL operative.  It's time to say bye to this thread.


Whats wrong Jimmy? I don't want you banned, I want you out here front and center.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> ....


Permanent resident status (you know, the "green card") is NOT the same as citizenship. You are mistaken.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, a permanent resident is just that, a legal "resident", they are not a citizen. In order for an LPR to become a citizen, they must apply to do so and pass a basic history test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
Click to expand...

No, he's right.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Permanent resident status (you know, the "green card") is NOT the same as citizenship. You are mistaken.
Click to expand...

You get a green card because you want to be a citizen.  Who wants to live here permanently and not be eligible for welfare, voting privileges, and unemployment benefits?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, a permanent resident is just that, a legal "resident", they are not a citizen. In order for an LPR to become a citizen, they must apply to do so and pass a basic history test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he's right.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm right.  It's not worth arguing over.  You've said what you believe and you're wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Permanent resident status (you know, the "green card") is NOT the same as citizenship. You are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get a green card because you want to be a citizen.  ...
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, a permanent resident is just that, a legal "resident", they are not a citizen. In order for an LPR to become a citizen, they must apply to do so and pass a basic history test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he's right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm right.  It's not worth arguing over.  You've said what you believe and you're wrong.
Click to expand...

You are FACTUALLY wrong, whether you like it or not.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> You get a green card because you want to be a citizen.  Who wants to live here permanently and not be eligible for welfare, voting privileges, and unemployment benefits?


No, they apply for a green card because they want to live here beyond a/their visa allowance. An LPR is eligible for many "welfare" benefits", they simply can't vote in governmental elections, and have almost all the same rights as a citizen.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Liquid Reigns said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm right.  It's not worth arguing over.  You've said what you believe and you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> No Jimmy, you are not right. This is basic immigration information.
Click to expand...

Reported


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, a permanent resident is just that, a legal "resident", they are not a citizen. In order for an LPR to become a citizen, they must apply to do so and pass a basic history test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he's right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm right.  It's not worth arguing over.  You've said what you believe and you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are FACTUALLY wrong, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...


No, I am not.  Having butt buddy back you only doubles your error, not reinforces it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Permanent resident status (you know, the "green card") is NOT the same as citizenship. You are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get a green card because you want to be a citizen.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily.
Click to expand...


Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do.  Please give links to your sources.


----------



## Gdjjr

I have a hard time believing the arrogance of people- ALL men- there are no caveats to that philosophy and Porter Rockwell quoted Jefferson in his thoughts on the laws of the constitution being based on it- yes, the Declaration stated a philosophy- of life- for one human to feel he is better than another because of something neither had anything to do with (place of origin) is pitiful and speaks to a thorough lack of humanity in that person- that equals arrogance, unfounded and evil at its core. It is what the political elite depend on for their very survival. Divisiveness of others for survival and wealth and power is evil personified and goes against the beliefs of those who signed the Declaration of Independence and they were a lot more intelligent than any of the opposers here.

It amazes me that people want to interpret to fit- without definition interpret ceases to exist- "ALL" is just that. Fully encompassing- holding these *truths* self evident I guess means only if qualified (by place of origin) to see self as evidence, which very few do as seen in most political message boards. The lack of introspection is amazing (and depressing) and speaks to the Public Education system subscribed to by BOTH sides of the Duopoly in power and put to full use in the ignorance of the masses-


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Permanent resident status (you know, the "green card") is NOT the same as citizenship. You are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get a green card because you want to be a citizen.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do.  Please give links to your sources.
Click to expand...

What does percentages have to do with anything here? A green card does not grant citizenship. If some apply for and get citizenship, so what. If some don't apply for citizenship and stay as an LPR, so what. At no point do you get a green card because you want to be a US Citizen, you get a green card because you want to live here beyond the length of time that a visa allows.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm right.  It's not worth arguing over.  You've said what you believe and you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> No Jimmy, you are not right. This is basic immigration information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reported
Click to expand...

Should I report you for being banned here under humorme? Come'on Jimmy grow a nut sack.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Gdjjr said:


> I have a hard time believing the arrogance of people- ALL men- there are no caveats to that philosophy and Porter Rockwell quoted Jefferson in his thoughts on the laws of the constitution being based on it- yes, the Declaration stated a philosophy- of life- for one human to feel he is better than another because of something neither had anything to do with (place of origin) is pitiful and speaks to a thorough lack of humanity in that person- that equals arrogance, unfounded and evil at its core. It is what the political elite depend on for their very survival. Divisiveness of others for survival and wealth and power is evil personified and goes against the beliefs of those who signed the Declaration of Independence and they were a lot more intelligent than any of the opposers here.
> 
> It amazes me that people want to interpret to fit- without definition interpret ceases to exist- "ALL" is just that. Fully encompassing- holding these *truths* self evident I guess means only if qualified (by place of origin) to see self as evidence, which very few do as seen in most political message boards. The lack of introspection is amazing (and depressing) and speaks to the Public Education system subscribed to by BOTH sides of the Duopoly in power and put to full use in the ignorance of the masses-


You use the word interpret, kinda like how you interpret a word to mean something that it doesn't? Your beliefs are just that, your beliefs. You can believe them all you want no matter how incorrectly you have interpreted the DoI or the USC. I find it funny how you claim people want to interpret to fit, when that is exactly what you are doing. The life and times of a "Sovereign Citizen".


----------



## Gdjjr

Liquid Reigns said:


> You use the word interpret, kinda like how you interpret a word to mean something that it doesn't? Your beliefs are just that, your beliefs. You can believe them all you want no matter how incorrectly you have interpreted the DoI or the USC. I find it funny how you claim people want to interpret to fit, when that is exactly what you are doing. The life and times of a "Sovereign Citizen".


I see it for what it is- I can read and have great simple English comprehension- I utilize it. I don't buy into the cheap rhetoric used by people like you, or politicians, in which I don't see a lot of difference- you're both psuedo intellectuals making the simple seem difficult so we the stinky tourist "believe" simple English is an esoteric endeavor- and trying to deflect with your link doesn't change a thing- no, I didn't click on your click bait- speak for yourself or STFU-


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Gdjjr said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use the word interpret, kinda like how you interpret a word to mean something that it doesn't? Your beliefs are just that, your beliefs. You can believe them all you want no matter how incorrectly you have interpreted the DoI or the USC. I find it funny how you claim people want to interpret to fit, when that is exactly what you are doing. The life and times of a "Sovereign Citizen".
> 
> 
> 
> I see it for what it is- I can read and have great simple English comprehension- I utilize it. I don't buy into the cheap rhetoric used by people like you, or politicians, in which I don't see a lot of difference- you're both psuedo intellectuals making the simple seem difficult so we the stinky tourist "believe" simple English is an esoteric endeavor- and trying to deflect with your link doesn't change a thing- no, I didn't click on your click bait- speak for yourself or STFU-
Click to expand...

No, you buy into cheap rhetoric espoused by morons ("Sovereign Citizen" idiots). English Comprehension requires one to understand the context of how a word is used, not to apply some trumped up meaning to a word to have it fit into their desired interpretation. 

Now, show me where I have deflected on anything, I'll gladly wait to see the "interpretation" you come up with.


----------



## Gdjjr

arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

arrogance: the quality if being arrogant

pseudo intellectual: a person *exhibiting intellectual pretensions* that have no basis in sound scholarship.
*a person who pretends* an interest in intellectual matters for reasons of status.


----------



## Gdjjr

Liquid Reigns said:


> Now, show me where I have deflected on anything, I'll gladly wait to see the "interpretation" you come up with.


Your click bait link- it proves (nor does it verify) anything-


----------



## Gdjjr

Liquid Reigns said:


> No, you buy into cheap rhetoric espoused by morons


And you are what?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Gdjjr said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, show me where I have deflected on anything, I'll gladly wait to see the "interpretation" you come up with.
> 
> 
> 
> Your click bait link- it proves (nor does it verify) anything-
Click to expand...

It wasn't meant to prove or verify anything, it simply points out the "Sovereign Citizen" ideology. SHRUG


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Gdjjr said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you buy into cheap rhetoric espoused by morons
> 
> 
> 
> And you are what?
Click to expand...

I am simply me, neither a what, nor a where, just a who.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Gdjjr said:


> arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
> 
> arrogance: the quality if being arrogant
> 
> pseudo intellectual: a person *exhibiting intellectual pretensions* that have no basis in sound scholarship.
> *a person who pretends* an interest in intellectual matters for reasons of status.


Kudos to you for giving definitions to big words, I guess.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, a permanent resident is just that, a legal "resident", they are not a citizen. In order for an LPR to become a citizen, they must apply to do so and pass a basic history test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he's right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm right.  It's not worth arguing over.  You've said what you believe and you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are FACTUALLY wrong, whether you like it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not.  ....
Click to expand...

Your insistence cannot alter reality. It is a FACT that permanent residency is NOT the same thing as citizenship. Why would this simple FACT make you so defensive?


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Permanent resident status (you know, the "green card") is NOT the same as citizenship. You are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get a green card because you want to be a citizen.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do.  Please give links to your sources.
Click to expand...

Don't try to move your own goal post now. It's far too late for that. YOU claimed that permanent residency was the SAME as citizenship. That is not correct. Why is it so hard for you to simply admit you were wrong?


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you buy into cheap rhetoric espoused by morons
> 
> 
> 
> And you are what?
Click to expand...

What exactly are you guys arguing about?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Liquid Reigns said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Permanent resident status (you know, the "green card") is NOT the same as citizenship. You are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get a green card because you want to be a citizen.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do.  Please give links to your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does percentages have to do with anything here? A green card does not grant citizenship. If some apply for and get citizenship, so what. If some don't apply for citizenship and stay as an LPR, so what. At no point do you get a green card because you want to be a US Citizen, you get a green card because you want to live here beyond the length of time that a visa allows.
Click to expand...


I don't think I addressed you here.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Permanent resident status (you know, the "green card") is NOT the same as citizenship. You are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get a green card because you want to be a citizen.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do.  Please give links to your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to move your own goal post now. It's far too late for that. YOU claimed that permanent residency was the SAME as citizenship. That is not correct. Why is it so hard for you to simply admit you were wrong?
Click to expand...


There you go, lying.  I *ASKED* why people would get a green card if not for citizenship.  The onus is on you to prove your assertion.  If 100,000 people apply for a green card and 90,000 of those end up becoming citizens, then my premise would be correct for the most part.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Permanent resident status (you know, the "green card") is NOT the same as citizenship. You are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get a green card because you want to be a citizen.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do.  Please give links to your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to move your own goal post now. It's far too late for that. YOU claimed that permanent residency was the SAME as citizenship. That is not correct. Why is it so hard for you to simply admit you were wrong?
Click to expand...


Have *YOU* ever admitted *YOU* were wrong?  Ever?  You like to pretend that you are a beaming paragon of human virtue, but you are fallible just like every swinging dick on the face of this earth.  Here's the deal unk, I spent many years studying and working in this field because, as a militia leader, the members were always telling me they didn't care whether or not someone were foreigners as long as they were "_legal_," so I did something proactive and began working with a Latino organization to get people their papers.  I figured if we did something proactive, the public would be more receptive to the idea that civilian militias were defending Liberty.  Was I wrong!  You want an admission of wrong?

Studying immigration and learning it has been nothing but a fucking curse.  I see the erroneous thinking in the* proposed solutions *of the MAGA crowd.  I've never denied that an issue exists.  It's that the *proposed solutions* will not address the real problem AND they end up denying to each of us our* unalienable* Rights.  That's not opinion; that is a *fact*.  As one proof that I KNOW what I'm talking about, I accurately predicted YEARS ago that the United States Supreme Court would not deport DACA kids.  Do you think I have a critic, including you, that would acknowledge that? 

The reality is, you like to be an asshole on the Internet because you lack the balls to say the shit you do to people face to face.  But, you're a rank fucking amateur.  Wait until you have a constant shadow like I have.  Here's a piece of shit that (if he did not do the deeds, caused them to happen) killed my cat and strung it over a tree branch, shot through my kitchen window one time while I was at home and has tried himself doxxing me for YEARS now to try and silence me.  Just in the past two months leading up to this week, that same mother fucker tried to steal money off my credit card which caused me to have to shut down my credit card and get another one at a different company.  Then he tried to steal money off me via paypal. I was forced to shut down my bank account and get another bank after being at the same one for 28 years.   Then he sent an e mail to the church I belong to saying that he had hacked the site and is going to shut it down and ruin my reputation unless the church pays him a sum of money in bitcoin.  What is ironic is that guy is going to back you up and the cocksucker is just like you.  He don't have the guts to stand up to me like a man.  He hacks my computer on a regular basis and he's good.

One day his luck and yours will run out.  Karma is a bitch.  But was I wrong?  I'd be better off NOT knowing this shit, but I do.  I know immigration law good enough that lawyers farm their work out to me rather than screw with it.  But, I paid the price only to learn that the issue is not about immigration.  The problem is non-whites want to take over and ARE taking over.  The white people simply lack the balls to stand up for themselves for fear of being labeled a racist.  Whether they are or not is immaterial.  I have my own personal views about race.  At the same time I've worked with and for non-whites.  They have been satisfied with my work and we've had long standing relationships.  Still I know the difference between citizenship and the concept of *unalienable* Rights -  Rights that are above the reach of government that protect all of us.  If I could go back and unlearn what I know so that I could blindly worship the orange man whose narcissism, *socialist solutions*, and stupid rhetoric have destroyed the constitutionalists, I'd damn well be tempted.  I regret having studied and worked in immigration law.  I was wrong and I pay a hefty price for it.  But, I rest assured knowing that people like you and that other cancer on the face of humanity will have something very bad befall you.  One day, you will lie in bed and pray to God for the evil you've visited on others.  So will that other POS.  So, yeah, I've been wrong.  But, you fuck with people because their misery gives you pleasure... just like my shadow does.  But, both of you are sick fucks and you're wrong.  So, now you can quit trying to pretend you wear a halo.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...
> There you go, lying.  I *ASKED* why people would get a green card if not for citizenship. ...



YOU made the initial assertion this entire discussion is based upon when YOU claimed that permanent residency was the same as citizenship. It is not.

What a clumsy attempt at misdirection.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...Have *YOU* ever admitted *YOU* were wrong?  Ever?  ...




Many, many times.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ... You like to pretend that you are a beaming paragon of human virtue...


I have never made such a claim. In fact, I'll say right now that I am NOT "a paragon of human virtue."


----------



## Unkotare

To summarize:

Permanent resident status is NOT the same thing as citizenship

There is no "official" language of The United States, and there never will be

English is, and will remain, the dominant language of The United States


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> To summarize:
> 
> Permanent resident status is NOT the same thing as citizenship
> 
> There is no "official" language of The United States, and there never will be
> 
> English is, and will remain, the dominant language of The United States



Irrelevant and careful dodge to my question

Irrelevant, but English should be the official language

In 25 years, Spanish will be the dominant language of the United States


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...
> 
> Irrelevant and careful dodge to my question
> ...


AGAIN, you made the claim that permanent residency is the same as citizenship. Do you now understand that they are not the same thing?


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...
> 
> In 25 years, Spanish will be the dominant language of the United States


No, it will not. By the third generation in America, the vast majority of Spanish-speaking immigrant families speak English primarily or exclusively in the home.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Irrelevant and careful dodge to my question
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN, you made the claim that permanent residency is the same as citizenship. Do you now understand that they are not the same thing?
Click to expand...


Do you understand I called you a liar and asked you to provide some information?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> In 25 years, Spanish will be the dominant language of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will not. By the third generation in America, the vast majority of Spanish-speaking immigrant families speak English primarily or exclusively in the home.
Click to expand...


Check back with us in 25 years.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

To give unkotare an analogy, there is road near me that goes between two major thoroughfares.  Most people use that side road as a short-cut, so it's usually common to hear residents say "_everybody uses that road as a shortcut_."   Technically, that isn't true.  There are over 50 houses on that road.  So is everybody that uses the language I said a liar?  That's what unkotare wants to argue about.  So, forgive me when I go back to telling that mindless idiot that he needs some new material.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Irrelevant and careful dodge to my question
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN, you made the claim that permanent residency is the same as citizenship. Do you now understand that they are not the same thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand I called you a liar...
Click to expand...

What lie are you imagining?


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> In 25 years, Spanish will be the dominant language of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will not. By the third generation in America, the vast majority of Spanish-speaking immigrant families speak English primarily or exclusively in the home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check back with us in 25 years.
Click to expand...

I can tell you right now.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Irrelevant and careful dodge to my question
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN, you made the claim that permanent residency is the same as citizenship. Do you now understand that they are not the same thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand I called you a liar...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What lie are you imagining?
Click to expand...


You need some new material


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> In 25 years, Spanish will be the dominant language of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will not. By the third generation in America, the vast majority of Spanish-speaking immigrant families speak English primarily or exclusively in the home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check back with us in 25 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can tell you right now.
Click to expand...


You need some new material, Nostradamus.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> To give unkotare an analogy, there is road near me that goes between two major thoroughfares.  Most people use that side road as a short-cut, so it's usually common to hear residents say "_everybody uses that road as a shortcut_."   Technically, that isn't true.  There are over 50 houses on that road.  So is everybody that uses the language I said a liar?  That's what unkotare wants to argue about.  So, forgive me when I go back to telling that mindless idiot that he needs some new material.


It seems that it would be much easier to just admit you were wrong than to tie yourself into knots like this.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...You need some new material


You need to take it to the FZ if you insist on making everything personal and ignoring the topic. There is a thread there just for you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> To give unkotare an analogy, there is road near me that goes between two major thoroughfares.  Most people use that side road as a short-cut, so it's usually common to hear residents say "_everybody uses that road as a shortcut_."   Technically, that isn't true.  There are over 50 houses on that road.  So is everybody that uses the language I said a liar?  That's what unkotare wants to argue about.  So, forgive me when I go back to telling that mindless idiot that he needs some new material.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that it would be much easier to just admit you were wrong than to tie yourself into knots like this.
Click to expand...


You need some new material


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...You need some new material
> 
> 
> 
> You need to take it to the FZ if you insist on making everything personal and ignoring the topic. There is a thread there just for you.
Click to expand...


You need some new material - I'm ignoring you and any butt buddies you rely on, not the topic.  You haven't added anything new, just the same erroneous B.S. *AND YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY RELEVANT QUESTION *


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...You need some new material


Just repeating that over and over is trolling and spamming. How about just admitting that permanent residency is NOT the same as citizenship, and that English is and will remain the dominant language in The United States without any futile worrying about an "official language."


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> *...AND YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY RELEVANT QUESTION *


Recognize that permanent residency is NOT the same thing as citizenship and I'll be happy to answer any legitimate question. 

Here's your chance to demonstrate that you aren't just here to troll me personally (again, there is a thread just for you in the FZ).


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...You need some new material
> 
> 
> 
> Just repeating that over and over is trolling and spamming. How about just admitting that permanent residency is NOT the same as citizenship, and that English is and will remain the dominant language in The United States without any futile worrying about an "official language."
Click to expand...


Then maybe you should come up with some new material and I won't have to ask you for a direct answer.  You need some new material.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *...AND YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY RELEVANT QUESTION *
> 
> 
> 
> Recognize that permanent residency is NOT the same thing as citizenship and I'll be happy to answer any legitimate question.
> 
> Here's your chance to demonstrate that you aren't just here to troll me personally (again, there is a thread just for you in the FZ).
Click to expand...


Answer my question and you will have your answer.  How simple is that?  You need some new material.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> There you go, lying.  I *ASKED* why people would get a green card if not for citizenship.  The onus is on you to prove your assertion.  If 100,000 people apply for a green card and 90,000 of those end up becoming citizens, then my premise would be correct for the most part.


The onus is on you, not Unkotare. You made a statement of fact, failed to back it up, moved the goal posts and then rant on about some made up story. SMFH

If 100K people applied for the GC, and 90K end up becoming citizens, it was by their very choice to apply for citizenship while holding the GC. It doesn't prove anything about your original claim. LMFAO


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *...AND YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY RELEVANT QUESTION *
> 
> 
> 
> Recognize that permanent residency is NOT the same thing as citizenship and I'll be happy to answer any legitimate question.
> 
> Here's your chance to demonstrate that you aren't just here to troll me personally (again, there is a thread just for you in the FZ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer my question and you will have your answer.  ....
Click to expand...

You made the initial (false) claim that touched off this discussion, so it seems only reasonable that you address that claim first. It's awfully hard to have a discussion if you won't stay on topic and at least support or withdraw your own claims. Productive discourse requires at least a minimum of agreed-upon standards of logic. 

Don't bother to attack me personally again. There is a thread for you in the FZ if you really must do that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *...AND YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY RELEVANT QUESTION *
> 
> 
> 
> Recognize that permanent residency is NOT the same thing as citizenship and I'll be happy to answer any legitimate question.
> 
> Here's your chance to demonstrate that you aren't just here to troll me personally (again, there is a thread just for you in the FZ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer my question and you will have your answer.  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made the initial (false) claim that touched off this discussion, so it seems only reasonable that you address that claim first. It's awfully hard to have a discussion if you won't stay on topic and at least support or withdraw your own claims. Productive discourse requires at least a minimum of agreed-upon standards of logic.
> 
> Don't bother to attack me personally again. There is a thread for you in the FZ if you really must do that.
Click to expand...


You and I are going nowhere in this discussion.  We both know you are a mod or the owner of this board.  That is how you violate the rules and avoid consequences.  So, you're going to do what you're going to do.  You're wrong; you've been proven wrong and you have avoided my question because you realize you are playing an ego game based upon semantics.  I'm sorry I pissed you off, but you get nothing more from me.  You're too chickenshit to do anything like a man would do, so this conversation is over.  You spam me and I'll spam you. 

You need some new material.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...We both know you are a mod or the owner of this board.  ...


For the 1000000000th time, no I am not.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ... You're wrong; you've been proven wrong ...


That is factually incorrect, as has been shown many times. You can't claim to have immersed yourself in immigration law as deeply as you claim and not know the most basic things about US immigration status. 

I'll say it again, permanent residency is NOT the same thing as citizenship, and having permanent residency involves no obligation to pursue citizenship. This is not a complex concept. 

If you have such a bug up your caboose about me, I can only point you once again to the Flame Zone where such bickering belongs. 


Maybe someone else would like to actually discuss immigration, assimilation, and/or the acquisition of the English language.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...We both know you are a mod or the owner of this board.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> For the 1000000000th time, no I am not.
Click to expand...


Then you'd have to be sucking someone's dick.  Nobody gets as much latitude as you do.  You need some new material.

If you want America to be great again, repeal laws until you get back to when America was great.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... You're wrong; you've been proven wrong ...
> 
> 
> 
> That is factually incorrect, as has been shown many times. You can't claim to have immersed yourself in immigration law as deeply as you claim and not know the most basic things about US immigration status.
> 
> I'll say it again, permanent residency is NOT the same thing as citizenship, and having permanent residency involves no obligation to pursue citizenship. This is not a complex concept.
> 
> If you have such a bug up your caboose about me, I can only point you once again to the Flame Zone where such bickering belongs.
> 
> 
> Maybe someone else would like to actually discuss immigration, assimilation, and/or the acquisition of the English language.
Click to expand...



You're the one addressing me - and lying the whole time.  You seem to have an obsession with me.  Did you notice this thread is down to 3 participants?  Who are you trying to impress?  You?


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...We both know you are a mod or the owner of this board.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> For the 1000000000th time, no I am not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you'd have to be sucking someone's dick.  Nobody gets as much latitude as you do.  You need some new material.
> 
> If you want America to be great again, repeal laws until you get back to when America was great.
Click to expand...

America IS great. Always has been.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...We both know you are a mod or the owner of this board.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> For the 1000000000th time, no I am not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you'd have to be sucking someone's dick.  Nobody gets as much latitude as you do.  You need some new material.
> 
> If you want America to be great again, repeal laws until you get back to when America was great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America IS great. Always has been.
Click to expand...


You need some new material.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ... - and lying the whole time.  ...


You keep saying that. What "lie"?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... - and lying the whole time.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that. What "lie"?
Click to expand...


You need some new material.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... - and lying the whole time.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that. What "lie"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need some new material.
Click to expand...

Why do you even bother to post "lie! lie! lie!" if you won't even 'reveal' what the hell you're talking about? This should really be over in the FZ. All you have to do is go there.


----------



## Toro

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Permanent resident status (you know, the "green card") is NOT the same as citizenship. You are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get a green card because you want to be a citizen.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do.  Please give links to your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to move your own goal post now. It's far too late for that. YOU claimed that permanent residency was the SAME as citizenship. That is not correct. Why is it so hard for you to simply admit you were wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have *YOU* ever admitted *YOU* were wrong?  Ever?  You like to pretend that you are a beaming paragon of human virtue, but you are fallible just like every swinging dick on the face of this earth.  Here's the deal unk, I spent many years studying and working in this field because, as a militia leader, the members were always telling me they didn't care whether or not someone were foreigners as long as they were "_legal_," so I did something proactive and began working with a Latino organization to get people their papers.  I figured if we did something proactive, the public would be more receptive to the idea that civilian militias were defending Liberty.  Was I wrong!  You want an admission of wrong?
> 
> Studying immigration and learning it has been nothing but a fucking curse.  I see the erroneous thinking in the* proposed solutions *of the MAGA crowd.  I've never denied that an issue exists.  It's that the *proposed solutions* will not address the real problem AND they end up denying to each of us our* unalienable* Rights.  That's not opinion; that is a *fact*.  As one proof that I KNOW what I'm talking about, I accurately predicted YEARS ago that the United States Supreme Court would not deport DACA kids.  Do you think I have a critic, including you, that would acknowledge that?
> 
> The reality is, you like to be an asshole on the Internet because you lack the balls to say the shit you do to people face to face.  But, you're a rank fucking amateur.  Wait until you have a constant shadow like I have.  Here's a piece of shit that (if he did not do the deeds, caused them to happen) killed my cat and strung it over a tree branch, shot through my kitchen window one time while I was at home and has tried himself doxxing me for YEARS now to try and silence me.  Just in the past two months leading up to this week, that same mother fucker tried to steal money off my credit card which caused me to have to shut down my credit card and get another one at a different company.  Then he tried to steal money off me via paypal. I was forced to shut down my bank account and get another bank after being at the same one for 28 years.   Then he sent an e mail to the church I belong to saying that he had hacked the site and is going to shut it down and ruin my reputation unless the church pays him a sum of money in bitcoin.  What is ironic is that guy is going to back you up and the cocksucker is just like you.  He don't have the guts to stand up to me like a man.  He hacks my computer on a regular basis and he's good.
> 
> One day his luck and yours will run out.  Karma is a bitch.  But was I wrong?  I'd be better off NOT knowing this shit, but I do.  I know immigration law good enough that lawyers farm their work out to me rather than screw with it.  But, I paid the price only to learn that the issue is not about immigration.  The problem is non-whites want to take over and ARE taking over.  The white people simply lack the balls to stand up for themselves for fear of being labeled a racist.  Whether they are or not is immaterial.  I have my own personal views about race.  At the same time I've worked with and for non-whites.  They have been satisfied with my work and we've had long standing relationships.  Still I know the difference between citizenship and the concept of *unalienable* Rights -  Rights that are above the reach of government that protect all of us.  If I could go back and unlearn what I know so that I could blindly worship the orange man whose narcissism, *socialist solutions*, and stupid rhetoric have destroyed the constitutionalists, I'd damn well be tempted.  I regret having studied and worked in immigration law.  I was wrong and I pay a hefty price for it.  But, I rest assured knowing that people like you and that other cancer on the face of humanity will have something very bad befall you.  One day, you will lie in bed and pray to God for the evil you've visited on others.  So will that other POS.  So, yeah, I've been wrong.  But, you fuck with people because their misery gives you pleasure... just like my shadow does.  But, both of you are sick fucks and you're wrong.  So, now you can quit trying to pretend you wear a halo.
Click to expand...


Porter Rockwell

I'm a former Green Card holder who became a proud American citizen.  It wasn't necessarily my intention to become an American citizen when I got my Green Card, but I became one as soon as I could. 

Permanent residency is not the same as citizenship.  Permanent residents don't get to vote, can't sit on juries, and can get kicked out of the country, of which the latter happened to someone I know.  A Green Card is the closest thing to permanent residency in American law, though if you know American immigration law, you know that technically a Green Card isn't permanent residency since it has to be renewed every 10 years. 

Not all Green Card holders want to become citizens.  A former employee of mine (who unfortunately died) was a Belgian citizen and a Green Card holder from the 1970s and never became an American citizen.  My best friend from high school is a Canadian and has told me he will never get his Green Card.  Both of them were married to American citizens and have families here.  There are many reasons why people don't want become citizens.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Toro said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Permanent resident status (you know, the "green card") is NOT the same as citizenship. You are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get a green card because you want to be a citizen.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do.  Please give links to your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to move your own goal post now. It's far too late for that. YOU claimed that permanent residency was the SAME as citizenship. That is not correct. Why is it so hard for you to simply admit you were wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have *YOU* ever admitted *YOU* were wrong?  Ever?  You like to pretend that you are a beaming paragon of human virtue, but you are fallible just like every swinging dick on the face of this earth.  Here's the deal unk, I spent many years studying and working in this field because, as a militia leader, the members were always telling me they didn't care whether or not someone were foreigners as long as they were "_legal_," so I did something proactive and began working with a Latino organization to get people their papers.  I figured if we did something proactive, the public would be more receptive to the idea that civilian militias were defending Liberty.  Was I wrong!  You want an admission of wrong?
> 
> Studying immigration and learning it has been nothing but a fucking curse.  I see the erroneous thinking in the* proposed solutions *of the MAGA crowd.  I've never denied that an issue exists.  It's that the *proposed solutions* will not address the real problem AND they end up denying to each of us our* unalienable* Rights.  That's not opinion; that is a *fact*.  As one proof that I KNOW what I'm talking about, I accurately predicted YEARS ago that the United States Supreme Court would not deport DACA kids.  Do you think I have a critic, including you, that would acknowledge that?
> 
> The reality is, you like to be an asshole on the Internet because you lack the balls to say the shit you do to people face to face.  But, you're a rank fucking amateur.  Wait until you have a constant shadow like I have.  Here's a piece of shit that (if he did not do the deeds, caused them to happen) killed my cat and strung it over a tree branch, shot through my kitchen window one time while I was at home and has tried himself doxxing me for YEARS now to try and silence me.  Just in the past two months leading up to this week, that same mother fucker tried to steal money off my credit card which caused me to have to shut down my credit card and get another one at a different company.  Then he tried to steal money off me via paypal. I was forced to shut down my bank account and get another bank after being at the same one for 28 years.   Then he sent an e mail to the church I belong to saying that he had hacked the site and is going to shut it down and ruin my reputation unless the church pays him a sum of money in bitcoin.  What is ironic is that guy is going to back you up and the cocksucker is just like you.  He don't have the guts to stand up to me like a man.  He hacks my computer on a regular basis and he's good.
> 
> One day his luck and yours will run out.  Karma is a bitch.  But was I wrong?  I'd be better off NOT knowing this shit, but I do.  I know immigration law good enough that lawyers farm their work out to me rather than screw with it.  But, I paid the price only to learn that the issue is not about immigration.  The problem is non-whites want to take over and ARE taking over.  The white people simply lack the balls to stand up for themselves for fear of being labeled a racist.  Whether they are or not is immaterial.  I have my own personal views about race.  At the same time I've worked with and for non-whites.  They have been satisfied with my work and we've had long standing relationships.  Still I know the difference between citizenship and the concept of *unalienable* Rights -  Rights that are above the reach of government that protect all of us.  If I could go back and unlearn what I know so that I could blindly worship the orange man whose narcissism, *socialist solutions*, and stupid rhetoric have destroyed the constitutionalists, I'd damn well be tempted.  I regret having studied and worked in immigration law.  I was wrong and I pay a hefty price for it.  But, I rest assured knowing that people like you and that other cancer on the face of humanity will have something very bad befall you.  One day, you will lie in bed and pray to God for the evil you've visited on others.  So will that other POS.  So, yeah, I've been wrong.  But, you fuck with people because their misery gives you pleasure... just like my shadow does.  But, both of you are sick fucks and you're wrong.  So, now you can quit trying to pretend you wear a halo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell
> 
> I'm a former Green Card holder who became a proud American citizen.  It wasn't necessarily my intention to become an American citizen when I got my Green Card, but I became one as soon as I could.
> 
> Permanent residency is not the same as citizenship.  Permanent residents don't get to vote, can't sit on juries, and can get kicked out of the country, of which the latter happened to someone I know.  A Green Card is the closest thing to permanent residency in American law, though if you know American immigration law, you know that technically a Green Card isn't permanent residency since it has to be renewed every 10 years.
> 
> Not all Green Card holders want to become citizens.  A former employee of mine (who unfortunately died) was a Belgian citizen and a Green Card holder from the 1970s and never became an American citizen.  My best friend from high school is a Canadian and has told me he will never get his Green Card.  Both of them were married to American citizens and have families here.  There are many reasons why people don't want become citizens.
Click to expand...


Read this carefully:

I worked IN immigration law for six years.  I did not say that permanent residency is citizenship.  You understand that, right?  What you have is an ego driven troll misrepresenting me.  You have to read ALL of what I wrote.  Let me repeat the analogy for you:

"_To give unkotare an analogy, there is road near me that goes between two major thoroughfares. Most people use that side road as a short-cut, so it's usually common to hear residents say "everybody uses that road as a shortcut." Technically, that isn't true. There are over 50 houses on that road. So is everybody that uses the language I said a liar? That's what unkotare wants to argue about. So, forgive me when I go back to telling that mindless idiot that he needs some new material_."    See post # 576

I said that people become permanent residents in order to be citizens.  Many don't realize that is where the road leads, so I asked my accuser to tell us how many people holding a green card became citizens versus those who do not.  He cannot give you the honest answer because most foreigners that become permanent residents end up just like you - a citizen.  Not all green card holders want to become citizens, but eventually the majority do.  I've handled paperwork for people that were here for 20 or more years.  Here are some things that got people to become citizens:

*  They adopt children 
*  Tax advantages
*  To get certain jobs that are easier for citizens to get
*  Change their mind as political conditions change in their home country
*  If they become citizens, they can help family members emigrate here

The trolls are hiding the truth by making this thread unnecessarily long so they can misrepresent my position.  It's as simple as that.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...  I did not say that permanent residency is citizenship. ...


*ahem*

'memba this?



Porter Rockwell said:


> ...1) Immigration = citizenship...


----------



## Toro

Porter Rockwell said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Permanent resident status (you know, the "green card") is NOT the same as citizenship. You are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get a green card because you want to be a citizen.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do.  Please give links to your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to move your own goal post now. It's far too late for that. YOU claimed that permanent residency was the SAME as citizenship. That is not correct. Why is it so hard for you to simply admit you were wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have *YOU* ever admitted *YOU* were wrong?  Ever?  You like to pretend that you are a beaming paragon of human virtue, but you are fallible just like every swinging dick on the face of this earth.  Here's the deal unk, I spent many years studying and working in this field because, as a militia leader, the members were always telling me they didn't care whether or not someone were foreigners as long as they were "_legal_," so I did something proactive and began working with a Latino organization to get people their papers.  I figured if we did something proactive, the public would be more receptive to the idea that civilian militias were defending Liberty.  Was I wrong!  You want an admission of wrong?
> 
> Studying immigration and learning it has been nothing but a fucking curse.  I see the erroneous thinking in the* proposed solutions *of the MAGA crowd.  I've never denied that an issue exists.  It's that the *proposed solutions* will not address the real problem AND they end up denying to each of us our* unalienable* Rights.  That's not opinion; that is a *fact*.  As one proof that I KNOW what I'm talking about, I accurately predicted YEARS ago that the United States Supreme Court would not deport DACA kids.  Do you think I have a critic, including you, that would acknowledge that?
> 
> The reality is, you like to be an asshole on the Internet because you lack the balls to say the shit you do to people face to face.  But, you're a rank fucking amateur.  Wait until you have a constant shadow like I have.  Here's a piece of shit that (if he did not do the deeds, caused them to happen) killed my cat and strung it over a tree branch, shot through my kitchen window one time while I was at home and has tried himself doxxing me for YEARS now to try and silence me.  Just in the past two months leading up to this week, that same mother fucker tried to steal money off my credit card which caused me to have to shut down my credit card and get another one at a different company.  Then he tried to steal money off me via paypal. I was forced to shut down my bank account and get another bank after being at the same one for 28 years.   Then he sent an e mail to the church I belong to saying that he had hacked the site and is going to shut it down and ruin my reputation unless the church pays him a sum of money in bitcoin.  What is ironic is that guy is going to back you up and the cocksucker is just like you.  He don't have the guts to stand up to me like a man.  He hacks my computer on a regular basis and he's good.
> 
> One day his luck and yours will run out.  Karma is a bitch.  But was I wrong?  I'd be better off NOT knowing this shit, but I do.  I know immigration law good enough that lawyers farm their work out to me rather than screw with it.  But, I paid the price only to learn that the issue is not about immigration.  The problem is non-whites want to take over and ARE taking over.  The white people simply lack the balls to stand up for themselves for fear of being labeled a racist.  Whether they are or not is immaterial.  I have my own personal views about race.  At the same time I've worked with and for non-whites.  They have been satisfied with my work and we've had long standing relationships.  Still I know the difference between citizenship and the concept of *unalienable* Rights -  Rights that are above the reach of government that protect all of us.  If I could go back and unlearn what I know so that I could blindly worship the orange man whose narcissism, *socialist solutions*, and stupid rhetoric have destroyed the constitutionalists, I'd damn well be tempted.  I regret having studied and worked in immigration law.  I was wrong and I pay a hefty price for it.  But, I rest assured knowing that people like you and that other cancer on the face of humanity will have something very bad befall you.  One day, you will lie in bed and pray to God for the evil you've visited on others.  So will that other POS.  So, yeah, I've been wrong.  But, you fuck with people because their misery gives you pleasure... just like my shadow does.  But, both of you are sick fucks and you're wrong.  So, now you can quit trying to pretend you wear a halo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell
> 
> I'm a former Green Card holder who became a proud American citizen.  It wasn't necessarily my intention to become an American citizen when I got my Green Card, but I became one as soon as I could.
> 
> Permanent residency is not the same as citizenship.  Permanent residents don't get to vote, can't sit on juries, and can get kicked out of the country, of which the latter happened to someone I know.  A Green Card is the closest thing to permanent residency in American law, though if you know American immigration law, you know that technically a Green Card isn't permanent residency since it has to be renewed every 10 years.
> 
> Not all Green Card holders want to become citizens.  A former employee of mine (who unfortunately died) was a Belgian citizen and a Green Card holder from the 1970s and never became an American citizen.  My best friend from high school is a Canadian and has told me he will never get his Green Card.  Both of them were married to American citizens and have families here.  There are many reasons why people don't want become citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read this carefully:
> 
> I worked IN immigration law for six years.  I did not say that permanent residency is citizenship.  You understand that, right?  What you have is an ego driven troll misrepresenting me.  You have to read ALL of what I wrote.  Let me repeat the analogy for you:
> 
> "_To give unkotare an analogy, there is road near me that goes between two major thoroughfares. Most people use that side road as a short-cut, so it's usually common to hear residents say "everybody uses that road as a shortcut." Technically, that isn't true. There are over 50 houses on that road. So is everybody that uses the language I said a liar? That's what unkotare wants to argue about. So, forgive me when I go back to telling that mindless idiot that he needs some new material_."    See post # 576
> 
> I said that people become permanent residents in order to be citizens.  Many don't realize that is where the road leads, so I asked my accuser to tell us how many people holding a green card became citizens versus those who do not.  He cannot give you the honest answer because most foreigners that become permanent residents end up just like you - a citizen.  Not all green card holders want to become citizens, but eventually the majority do.  I've handled paperwork for people that were here for 20 or more years.  Here are some things that got people to become citizens:
> 
> *  They adopt children
> *  Tax advantages
> *  To get certain jobs that are easier for citizens to get
> *  Change their mind as political conditions change in their home country
> *  If they become citizens, they can help family members emigrate here
> 
> The trolls are hiding the truth by making this thread unnecessarily long so they can misrepresent my position.  It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...


Look, when you say "a permanent resident is a citizen," that's easily misconstrued as "A Green Card holder is a citizen" because "permanent resident" and "Green Card holder" are often interchangeable and understood to be the same thing, even if technically the only permanent residents are citizens.  Google "US permanent residency" and you'll see page after page about Green Cards. 

You're arguing semantics.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> Read this carefully:
> 
> I worked IN immigration law for six years.



No you haven't. You hold NO law license, NO immigration schooling, nothing. Funny how you call others liars yet lie yourself. SMFH



Porter Rockwell said:


> I did not say that permanent residency is citizenship.  You understand that, right?  What you have is an ego driven troll misrepresenting me.  You have to read ALL of what I wrote.  Let me repeat the analogy for you:
> 
> "_To give unkotare an analogy, there is road near me that goes between two major thoroughfares. Most people use that side road as a short-cut, so it's usually common to hear residents say "everybody uses that road as a shortcut." Technically, that isn't true. There are over 50 houses on that road. So is everybody that uses the language I said a liar? That's what unkotare wants to argue about. So, forgive me when I go back to telling that mindless idiot that he needs some new material_."    See post # 576


Unkotare pretty much already showed your exact words, again you call people names that you yourself are.



Porter Rockwell said:


> I said that people become permanent residents in order to be citizens.  Many don't realize that is where the road leads, so I asked my accuser to tell us how many people holding a green card became citizens versus those who do not.  He cannot give you the honest answer because most foreigners that become permanent residents end up just like you - a citizen.  Not all green card holders want to become citizens, but eventually the majority do.  I've handled paperwork for people that were here for 20 or more years.  Here are some things that got people to become citizens:
> 
> *  They adopt children
> *  Tax advantages
> *  To get certain jobs that are easier for citizens to get
> *  Change their mind as political conditions change in their home country
> *  If they become citizens, they can help family members emigrate here
> 
> The trolls are hiding the truth by making this thread unnecessarily long so they can misrepresent my position.  It's as simple as that.


You haven't handled anybody's paperwork, legally. SMFH


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  I did not say that permanent residency is citizenship. ...
> 
> 
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> 'memba this?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1) Immigration = citizenship...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Point?  Remember this?

Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do. Please give links to your sources.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Toro said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> A permanent resident is a citizen
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Permanent resident status (you know, the "green card") is NOT the same as citizenship. You are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get a green card because you want to be a citizen.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do.  Please give links to your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to move your own goal post now. It's far too late for that. YOU claimed that permanent residency was the SAME as citizenship. That is not correct. Why is it so hard for you to simply admit you were wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have *YOU* ever admitted *YOU* were wrong?  Ever?  You like to pretend that you are a beaming paragon of human virtue, but you are fallible just like every swinging dick on the face of this earth.  Here's the deal unk, I spent many years studying and working in this field because, as a militia leader, the members were always telling me they didn't care whether or not someone were foreigners as long as they were "_legal_," so I did something proactive and began working with a Latino organization to get people their papers.  I figured if we did something proactive, the public would be more receptive to the idea that civilian militias were defending Liberty.  Was I wrong!  You want an admission of wrong?
> 
> Studying immigration and learning it has been nothing but a fucking curse.  I see the erroneous thinking in the* proposed solutions *of the MAGA crowd.  I've never denied that an issue exists.  It's that the *proposed solutions* will not address the real problem AND they end up denying to each of us our* unalienable* Rights.  That's not opinion; that is a *fact*.  As one proof that I KNOW what I'm talking about, I accurately predicted YEARS ago that the United States Supreme Court would not deport DACA kids.  Do you think I have a critic, including you, that would acknowledge that?
> 
> The reality is, you like to be an asshole on the Internet because you lack the balls to say the shit you do to people face to face.  But, you're a rank fucking amateur.  Wait until you have a constant shadow like I have.  Here's a piece of shit that (if he did not do the deeds, caused them to happen) killed my cat and strung it over a tree branch, shot through my kitchen window one time while I was at home and has tried himself doxxing me for YEARS now to try and silence me.  Just in the past two months leading up to this week, that same mother fucker tried to steal money off my credit card which caused me to have to shut down my credit card and get another one at a different company.  Then he tried to steal money off me via paypal. I was forced to shut down my bank account and get another bank after being at the same one for 28 years.   Then he sent an e mail to the church I belong to saying that he had hacked the site and is going to shut it down and ruin my reputation unless the church pays him a sum of money in bitcoin.  What is ironic is that guy is going to back you up and the cocksucker is just like you.  He don't have the guts to stand up to me like a man.  He hacks my computer on a regular basis and he's good.
> 
> One day his luck and yours will run out.  Karma is a bitch.  But was I wrong?  I'd be better off NOT knowing this shit, but I do.  I know immigration law good enough that lawyers farm their work out to me rather than screw with it.  But, I paid the price only to learn that the issue is not about immigration.  The problem is non-whites want to take over and ARE taking over.  The white people simply lack the balls to stand up for themselves for fear of being labeled a racist.  Whether they are or not is immaterial.  I have my own personal views about race.  At the same time I've worked with and for non-whites.  They have been satisfied with my work and we've had long standing relationships.  Still I know the difference between citizenship and the concept of *unalienable* Rights -  Rights that are above the reach of government that protect all of us.  If I could go back and unlearn what I know so that I could blindly worship the orange man whose narcissism, *socialist solutions*, and stupid rhetoric have destroyed the constitutionalists, I'd damn well be tempted.  I regret having studied and worked in immigration law.  I was wrong and I pay a hefty price for it.  But, I rest assured knowing that people like you and that other cancer on the face of humanity will have something very bad befall you.  One day, you will lie in bed and pray to God for the evil you've visited on others.  So will that other POS.  So, yeah, I've been wrong.  But, you fuck with people because their misery gives you pleasure... just like my shadow does.  But, both of you are sick fucks and you're wrong.  So, now you can quit trying to pretend you wear a halo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell
> 
> I'm a former Green Card holder who became a proud American citizen.  It wasn't necessarily my intention to become an American citizen when I got my Green Card, but I became one as soon as I could.
> 
> Permanent residency is not the same as citizenship.  Permanent residents don't get to vote, can't sit on juries, and can get kicked out of the country, of which the latter happened to someone I know.  A Green Card is the closest thing to permanent residency in American law, though if you know American immigration law, you know that technically a Green Card isn't permanent residency since it has to be renewed every 10 years.
> 
> Not all Green Card holders want to become citizens.  A former employee of mine (who unfortunately died) was a Belgian citizen and a Green Card holder from the 1970s and never became an American citizen.  My best friend from high school is a Canadian and has told me he will never get his Green Card.  Both of them were married to American citizens and have families here.  There are many reasons why people don't want become citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read this carefully:
> 
> I worked IN immigration law for six years.  I did not say that permanent residency is citizenship.  You understand that, right?  What you have is an ego driven troll misrepresenting me.  You have to read ALL of what I wrote.  Let me repeat the analogy for you:
> 
> "_To give unkotare an analogy, there is road near me that goes between two major thoroughfares. Most people use that side road as a short-cut, so it's usually common to hear residents say "everybody uses that road as a shortcut." Technically, that isn't true. There are over 50 houses on that road. So is everybody that uses the language I said a liar? That's what unkotare wants to argue about. So, forgive me when I go back to telling that mindless idiot that he needs some new material_."    See post # 576
> 
> I said that people become permanent residents in order to be citizens.  Many don't realize that is where the road leads, so I asked my accuser to tell us how many people holding a green card became citizens versus those who do not.  He cannot give you the honest answer because most foreigners that become permanent residents end up just like you - a citizen.  Not all green card holders want to become citizens, but eventually the majority do.  I've handled paperwork for people that were here for 20 or more years.  Here are some things that got people to become citizens:
> 
> *  They adopt children
> *  Tax advantages
> *  To get certain jobs that are easier for citizens to get
> *  Change their mind as political conditions change in their home country
> *  If they become citizens, they can help family members emigrate here
> 
> The trolls are hiding the truth by making this thread unnecessarily long so they can misrepresent my position.  It's as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, when you say "a permanent resident is a citizen," that's easily misconstrued as "A Green Card holder is a citizen" because "permanent resident" and "Green Card holder" are often interchangeable and understood to be the same thing, even if technically the only permanent residents are citizens.  Google "US permanent residency" and you'll see page after page about Green Cards.
> 
> You're arguing semantics.
Click to expand...


No, I was not arguing semantics.  Uncle shit did that.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  I did not say that permanent residency is citizenship. ...
> 
> 
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> 'memba this?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1) Immigration = citizenship...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Point?  Remember this?
> 
> Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do. Please give links to your sources.
Click to expand...

No,no,no militia boy. YOU made a claim. Support it or admit that you were wrong. Simple as that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  I did not say that permanent residency is citizenship. ...
> 
> 
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> 'memba this?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1) Immigration = citizenship...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Point?  Remember this?
> 
> Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do. Please give links to your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,no,no militia boy. YOU made a claim. Support it or admit that you were wrong. Simple as that.
Click to expand...


Fuck you faggot.  I'm not your boy.  Maybe that cocksucker you had to bring in to help you might be your boy, but bet your ass I NEVER will be.  You don't give me orders.  Just give blow jobs and stay out of the way.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ... You don't give me orders.  ....


I have given you orders. You will obey, or be forever identified as an illogical, illegitimate interlocutor.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... You don't give me orders.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> I have given you orders. You will obey, or be forever identified as an illogical, illegitimate interlocutor.
Click to expand...


If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.  Did I mention, you need some new material?


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  I did not say that permanent residency is citizenship. ...
> 
> 
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> 'memba this?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1) Immigration = citizenship...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Point?  Remember this?
> 
> Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do. Please give links to your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,no,no militia boy. YOU made a claim. Support it or admit that you were wrong. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  I did not say that permanent residency is citizenship. ...
> 
> 
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> 'memba this?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1) Immigration = citizenship...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  I did not say that permanent residency is citizenship. ...
> 
> 
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> 'memba this?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1) Immigration = citizenship...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Point?  Remember this?
> 
> Post what percentage of people get a green card and do not become citizens versus those who do. Please give links to your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,no,no militia boy. YOU made a claim. Support it or admit that you were wrong. Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You need some new material.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...You need some new material.


Stop trolling and address the topic at hand. You can do that, can't you?


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  I did not say that permanent residency is citizenship. ...
> 
> 
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> 'memba this?
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1) Immigration = citizenship...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> Fuck you faggot.  I'm not your boy.


This implies that you are someones boi, so please do tell. LMFAO


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...You need some new material.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trolling and address the topic at hand. You can do that, can't you?
Click to expand...


You came here to troll me and you need some new material, chief.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Liquid Reigns said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you faggot.  I'm not your boy.
> 
> 
> 
> This implies that you are someones boi, so please do tell. LMFAO
Click to expand...


Unlike you, I'm not a faggot that wasted his life stalking the same person.  I'm not anybody's boy, not going to be yours and that pisses your dick sucking ass off terribly.


----------



## Gdjjr

Liquid Reigns said:


> Kudos to you for giving definitions to big words


Thanks- I call like the "context" I see them in.


----------



## Gdjjr

Unkotare said:


> America IS great. Always has been.


Define "great"- please.


----------



## Gdjjr

Liquid Reigns said:


> No you haven't. You hold NO law license, NO immigration schooling, nothing. Funny how you call others liars yet lie yourself. SMFH


You know this how?


----------



## Gdjjr

Unkotare said:


> I have given you orders. You will obey, or be forever identified as an illogical, illegitimate interlocutor.


Uh-huh- and coming from you that means what?


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...You need some new material.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trolling and address the topic at hand. You can do that, can't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You came here to troll me and you need some new material, chief.
Click to expand...

I’m trying to discuss the topic.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You hold NO law license, NO immigration schooling, nothing. Funny how you call others liars yet lie yourself. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?
Click to expand...

To be honest, it is because he clearly doesn’t know the most basic things about US immigration.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> America IS great. Always has been.
> 
> 
> 
> Define "great"- please.
Click to expand...

Principles, people, culture, strength, prosperity, opportunity, etc.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...You need some new material.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trolling and address the topic at hand. You can do that, can't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You came here to troll me and you need some new material, chief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m trying to discuss the topic.
Click to expand...


You have my permission to discuss all you like.  I am not obligated to interact with you.  IF I'm wrong, address me in your official capacity OR have whoever dick you're sucking tell me that I have to respond to your inane and repetitive B.S.  If it is required that I respond to you and that is in the rules, cite it.  If not, I don't owe you anything.  What you're really doing is trying to put space between the substantive posts with your trolling so as to misrepresent what I've really stated on this thread.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ... IF I'm wrong, address me in your official capacity ....


Why you are wrong has been explained to you a million times. As for my "official capacity," unless you enroll in high school this is as close as you're gonna get.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Gdjjr said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> America IS great. Always has been.
> 
> 
> 
> Define "great"- please.
Click to expand...

"great" is defined by its context.









						Definition of GREAT
					

notably large in size : huge; of a kind characterized by relative largeness —used in plant and animal names; elaborate, ample… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com
				




Can you pick the correct definition of "great" from its many definitions?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> You have my permission to discuss all you like.  I am not obligated to interact with you.


And yet your ego forces you to keep responding. LMFAO


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Liquid Reigns said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have my permission to discuss all you like.  I am not obligated to interact with you.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet your ego forces you to keep responding. LMFAO
Click to expand...


And *YOUR *ego keeps you stalking me 24 / 7 / 365.  It's either that or you're a fed that has lots of time to waste.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Gdjjr said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You hold NO law license, NO immigration schooling, nothing. Funny how you call others liars yet lie yourself. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?
Click to expand...


He does not know unless he's a fed.  Because of that POS, I've been forced to move 3 times in the last 5 years; move into different states and legally change my name 3 times.  Because I've refused to respond to his bullshit, he's saw fit to hound me and follow me 24 7 / 365.  He's trolled me and stalked me on a dozen boards under at least half a dozen times.  He's doxxed me, and if he did not do it, he caused my cat to be hung by the neck over a branch, killing it; my kitchen to be shot into while I was at home and my computers are being hacked on an almost daily basis.  I just summarized this week for someone else.

Beginning 8 weeks ago, someone tried to steal money off my credit card.  The credit card company cancelled my card and sent a new one... with the WRONG NAME on it.  paypal tried to steal money out of my account.  When they wouldn't investigate it, I stopped payment on the check.  Then I was told they could keep trying to debit my bank account.  So, I started a new account.  Then whoever set up that account put my ex wife's name on it.  That account had to be terminated and another one started.  On the new account, they got my name wrong.  The next time, they did the account, they got my address wrong.  On my old account, which is now terminated, the bank paid out money to persons unknown and tried to charge me - claiming it was an over-draft on my old account.  I'm still working on that one.

Then the church I belong to got a threatening e mail aimed toward me.  Two days later, my old nemesis, the son of a bitch being paid to run this harassment campaign shows up on USM making false claims against me, realizing that I'd have to post my real name and so forth to "_prove_" he's lying.  The e mail did say he'd destroy my reputation.  That would happen only among idiots.  I have friends who have been with me for 30 years - maybe more.  In addition, I have plenty of proof in my home to verify that I am who I say and no lack of credible documentation.  So, good luck posting lies on the Internet.  Only fools and morons believe it without going directly to the source and / or providing something that contradicts what you can see for yourself.  But, the guy is trying to keep his promise - as if a discussion board influences 350 million people in America.  Be glad to forward the threats I got only days before my stalker here started his standard canard.  He's a lying mother fucker that has wasted at least five years of his life chasing me around like a dog in heat.  I'd give $2000 just to meet him face to face.

BTW, I got on a company jet a few years ago and went to a place where someone tracking his IP said he was.  After extensive interviews, nobody fit the dirtbag's profile.  Then I found out people can hide their real location.   I've traveled the country far and wide to meet him so any criticism he has of me is, most likely, pure bullshit that he makes up.


----------



## Unkotare




----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You hold NO law license, NO immigration schooling, nothing. Funny how you call others liars yet lie yourself. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He does not know unless he's a fed.  Because of that POS, I've been forced to move 3 times in the last 5 years; move into different states and legally change my name 3 times.  Because I've refused to respond to his bullshit, he's saw fit to hound me and follow me 24 7 / 365.  He's trolled me and stalked me on a dozen boards under at least half a dozen times.  He's doxxed me, and if he did not do it, he caused my cat to be hung by the neck over a branch, killing it; my kitchen to be shot into while I was at home and my computers are being hacked on an almost daily basis.  I just summarized this week for someone else.
> 
> Beginning 8 weeks ago, someone tried to steal money off my credit card.  The credit card company cancelled my card and sent a new one... with the WRONG NAME on it.  paypal tried to steal money out of my account.  When they wouldn't investigate it, I stopped payment on the check.  Then I was told they could keep trying to debit my bank account.  So, I started a new account.  Then whoever set up that account put my ex wife's name on it.  That account had to be terminated and another one started.  On the new account, they got my name wrong.  The next time, they did the account, they got my address wrong.  On my old account, which is now terminated, the bank paid out money to persons unknown and tried to charge me - claiming it was an over-draft on my old account.  I'm still working on that one.
> 
> Then the church I belong to got a threatening e mail aimed toward me.  Two days later, my old nemesis, the son of a bitch being paid to run this harassment campaign shows up on USM making false claims against me, realizing that I'd have to post my real name and so forth to "_prove_" he's lying.  The e mail did say he'd destroy my reputation.  That would happen only among idiots.  I have friends who have been with me for 30 years - maybe more.  In addition, I have plenty of proof in my home to verify that I am who I say and no lack of credible documentation.  So, good luck posting lies on the Internet.  Only fools and morons believe it without going directly to the source and / or providing something that contradicts what you can see for yourself.  But, the guy is trying to keep his promise - as if a discussion board influences 350 million people in America.  Be glad to forward the threats I got only days before my stalker here started his standard canard.  He's a lying mother fucker that has wasted at least five years of his life chasing me around like a dog in heat.  I'd give $2000 just to meet him face to face.
> 
> BTW, I got on a company jet a few years ago and went to a place where someone tracking his IP said he was.  After extensive interviews, nobody fit the dirtbag's profile.  Then I found out people can hide their real location.   I've traveled the country far and wide to meet him so any criticism he has of me is, most likely, pure bullshit that he makes up.
Click to expand...

Cool story Bro, to bad your full of shit. I've told you, anytime you come to California let me know, I'll meet you at the airport gate, you can youtube the whole thing.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have my permission to discuss all you like.  I am not obligated to interact with you.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet your ego forces you to keep responding. LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And *YOUR *ego keeps you stalking me 24 / 7 / 365.  It's either that or you're a fed that has lots of time to waste.
Click to expand...

Sorry numbnuts, I've been a member of this message board longer than you have, you came here where I was, not me going to where you were.


----------



## Gdjjr

Unkotare said:


> Principles, people, culture, strength, prosperity, opportunity, etc.


Those are superficial. The "principles" are being ignored (especially in this thread) unless they've changed and I wasn't informed- which is possible, though not likely- the people suck (just peruse message boards, the govt and media)- besides that people are just people (except elected thugs who believe they're special no matter their Country) strength is only skin deep in this Country, most wouldn't know how to live w/o amenities, prosperity is superficial and connected to amenities, and opportunity is quite limited. If you don't believe that, try starting an oil company or an auto manufacturing business, or hell, an A/C repair business.


----------



## Gdjjr

Liquid Reigns said:


> Can you pick the correct definition of "great" from its many definitions?


Yes, I can- can you?


----------



## Gdjjr

Gdjjr said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You hold NO law license, NO immigration schooling, nothing. Funny how you call others liars yet lie yourself. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?
Click to expand...

Crickets- imagine that.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Principles, people, culture, strength, prosperity, opportunity, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are superficial. ....
Click to expand...

Those are ESSENTIAL.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> ...The "principles" are being ignored ....


Are _you_ ignoring them?


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> ...- the people suck ...


Which people? Are you saying that everyone you have ever met "sucks"? If so, I've got bad news for you.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> ... strength is only skin deep in this Country....


What does that even mean?


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> ... prosperity is superficial ....


Tell that to people who are hungry or cold.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> ... opportunity is quite limited. ....


Bullshit. Go speak to any new American citizen.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> .... try starting an oil company or an auto manufacturing business.....


Yeah, because those are the only kinds of "opportunities" that are worth mentioning. How fucking stupid can you get? If you have a few hundred billion dollars you have every opportunity to pursue those industries. Is there no 'opportunity' if anyone can't start a fucking oil company with $100?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Gdjjr said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you pick the correct definition of "great" from its many definitions?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I can- can you?
Click to expand...

Yep


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Larsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You hold NO law license, NO immigration schooling, nothing. Funny how you call others liars yet lie yourself. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He does not know unless he's a fed.  Because of that POS, I've been forced to move 3 times in the last 5 years; move into different states and legally change my name 3 times.  Because I've refused to respond to his bullshit, he's saw fit to hound me and follow me 24 7 / 365.  He's trolled me and stalked me on a dozen boards under at least half a dozen times.  He's doxxed me, and if he did not do it, he caused my cat to be hung by the neck over a branch, killing it; my kitchen to be shot into while I was at home and my computers are being hacked on an almost daily basis.  I just summarized this week for someone else.
> 
> Beginning 8 weeks ago, someone tried to steal money off my credit card.  The credit card company cancelled my card and sent a new one... with the WRONG NAME on it.  paypal tried to steal money out of my account.  When they wouldn't investigate it, I stopped payment on the check.  Then I was told they could keep trying to debit my bank account.  So, I started a new account.  Then whoever set up that account put my ex wife's name on it.  That account had to be terminated and another one started.  On the new account, they got my name wrong.  The next time, they did the account, they got my address wrong.  On my old account, which is now terminated, the bank paid out money to persons unknown and tried to charge me - claiming it was an over-draft on my old account.  I'm still working on that one.
> 
> Then the church I belong to got a threatening e mail aimed toward me.  Two days later, my old nemesis, the son of a bitch being paid to run this harassment campaign shows up on USM making false claims against me, realizing that I'd have to post my real name and so forth to "_prove_" he's lying.  The e mail did say he'd destroy my reputation.  That would happen only among idiots.  I have friends who have been with me for 30 years - maybe more.  In addition, I have plenty of proof in my home to verify that I am who I say and no lack of credible documentation.  So, good luck posting lies on the Internet.  Only fools and morons believe it without going directly to the source and / or providing something that contradicts what you can see for yourself.  But, the guy is trying to keep his promise - as if a discussion board influences 350 million people in America.  Be glad to forward the threats I got only days before my stalker here started his standard canard.  He's a lying mother fucker that has wasted at least five years of his life chasing me around like a dog in heat.  I'd give $2000 just to meet him face to face.
> 
> BTW, I got on a company jet a few years ago and went to a place where someone tracking his IP said he was.  After extensive interviews, nobody fit the dirtbag's profile.  Then I found out people can hide their real location.   I've traveled the country far and wide to meet him so any criticism he has of me is, most likely, pure bullshit that he makes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool story!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't trust Liquid Reigns.  He's a fed.
Click to expand...

Is there any reason you would be so concerned about "feds"?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You hold NO law license, NO immigration schooling, nothing. Funny how you call others liars yet lie yourself. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He does not know unless he's a fed.  Because of that POS, I've been forced to move 3 times in the last 5 years; move into different states and legally change my name 3 times.  Because I've refused to respond to his bullshit, he's saw fit to hound me and follow me 24 7 / 365.  He's trolled me and stalked me on a dozen boards under at least half a dozen times.  He's doxxed me, and if he did not do it, he caused my cat to be hung by the neck over a branch, killing it; my kitchen to be shot into while I was at home and my computers are being hacked on an almost daily basis.  I just summarized this week for someone else.
> 
> Beginning 8 weeks ago, someone tried to steal money off my credit card.  The credit card company cancelled my card and sent a new one... with the WRONG NAME on it.  paypal tried to steal money out of my account.  When they wouldn't investigate it, I stopped payment on the check.  Then I was told they could keep trying to debit my bank account.  So, I started a new account.  Then whoever set up that account put my ex wife's name on it.  That account had to be terminated and another one started.  On the new account, they got my name wrong.  The next time, they did the account, they got my address wrong.  On my old account, which is now terminated, the bank paid out money to persons unknown and tried to charge me - claiming it was an over-draft on my old account.  I'm still working on that one.
> 
> Then the church I belong to got a threatening e mail aimed toward me.  Two days later, my old nemesis, the son of a bitch being paid to run this harassment campaign shows up on USM making false claims against me, realizing that I'd have to post my real name and so forth to "_prove_" he's lying.  The e mail did say he'd destroy my reputation.  That would happen only among idiots.  I have friends who have been with me for 30 years - maybe more.  In addition, I have plenty of proof in my home to verify that I am who I say and no lack of credible documentation.  So, good luck posting lies on the Internet.  Only fools and morons believe it without going directly to the source and / or providing something that contradicts what you can see for yourself.  But, the guy is trying to keep his promise - as if a discussion board influences 350 million people in America.  Be glad to forward the threats I got only days before my stalker here started his standard canard.  He's a lying mother fucker that has wasted at least five years of his life chasing me around like a dog in heat.  I'd give $2000 just to meet him face to face.
> 
> BTW, I got on a company jet a few years ago and went to a place where someone tracking his IP said he was.  After extensive interviews, nobody fit the dirtbag's profile.  Then I found out people can hide their real location.   I've traveled the country far and wide to meet him so any criticism he has of me is, most likely, pure bullshit that he makes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool story!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't trust Liquid Reigns.  He's a fed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is there any reason you would be so concerned about "feds"?
Click to expand...


No and that is why I'm not afraid of that stupid mother fucker.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Porter Rockwell said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have my permission to discuss all you like.  I am not obligated to interact with you.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet your ego forces you to keep responding. LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And *YOUR *ego keeps you stalking me 24 / 7 / 365.  It's either that or you're a fed that has lots of time to waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry numbnuts, I've been a member of this message board longer than you have, you came here where I was, not me going to where you were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But as any blind man can see, you've followed me to how many boards now?  And somebody's paying you to fuck with me.  That threat you made via e mail... that was pure chickenshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show the email then, as I have never sent a threatening email to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO.
> 
> _"our team has found a vulnerability within your site that we were able to exploit. After finding the vulnerability we were able to get your database credentials and extract your entire database and move the information to an offshore server.
> 
> What does this mean?
> 
> We will systematically go through a series of steps of totally damaging your reputation. First your database will be leaked or sold to the highest bidder which they will use with whatever their intentions are. Next if there are e-mails found they will be e-mailed that their information has been sold or leaked and your site XXX was at fault thusly damaging your reputation and having angry customers/associates with whatever angry customers/associates do. Lastly any links that you have indexed in the search engines will be de-indexed based off of blackhat techniques that we used in the past to de-index our targets.
> 
> How do I stop this?
> 
> We are willing to refrain from destroying your site's reputation for a small fee. The current fee is .33 BTC in bitcoins ($3000 USD).
> 
> Send the bitcoin to the following Bitcoin address (Copy and paste as it is case sensitive):
> 
> 1FjMYuEXXRSPbey42fRkHwLgH1yohE2PZF
> 
> Once you have paid we will automatically get informed that it was your payment. Please note that you have to make payment within 5 days after receiving this notice or the database leak, e-mails dispatched, and de-index of your site WILL start!
> 
> How do I get Bitcoins?
> 
> You can easily buy bitcoins via several websites or even offline from a Bitcoin-ATM. We suggest you cex.io/ for buying bitcoins.
> 
> What if I don’t pay?
> 
> If you decide not to pay, we will start the attack at the indicated date and uphold it until you do, there’s no counter measure to this, you will only end up wasting more money trying to find a solution. We will completely destroy your reputation amongst google and your customers."
> 
> This is not a hoax, do not reply to this email, don’t try to reason or negotiate, we will not read any replies. Once you have paid we will stop what we were doing and you will never hear from us again!
> 
> Please note that Bitcoin is anonymous and no one will find out that you have complied._"
> 
> I posted that elsewhere before you started your bullshit back up on this site.  Of course you didn't leave a way to trace the e mail, but how long's it been since you were here last?
> 
> You've been stalking me for a long time.  You've been busted so many times I've lost count and you are not worth keeping score over.  By contrast, you seem to think you know the last time I took a shit.  People should look at all the effort you've put into stalking me and ask themselves why.  They might by your next target if they say the wrong thing.  BTW, why don't you tell the people?  You did fuck up that site when the church failed to pay your ransom.  Prove it?  I don't have to.  Study the threat and when it was published - just a couple of days before you started chasing me around over here. Coincidence?  Nah. And how many links can you find that the average person can't, showing that you have some personal vendetta to settle with me?  You like to do it here, but it doesn't matter to me where it happens.
> 
> I continue to make a good faith effort to locate and identify you.  Talk big, but remain anonymous.  You have NO credibility.  Everyone that studies your posts will easily see that you are a chickenshit fed; I told the truth; you are a sick ass stalker that is paid for by the feds.  I'm just not afraid of you.  So, come out of your hidey hole.  Quit following me around like a dog in heat and stop lying.  You've probably never even been in Kali.
Click to expand...

Cool Story Bro LMFAO


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ... I'm not afraid of that stupid mother fucker.


Doooooeeeeesssss........he want you to be.......?


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... opportunity is quite limited. ....
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Go speak to any new American citizen.
Click to expand...

You won't find a more optimistic, patriotic American than a new American. It's highly inspirational to witness a naturalization ceremony and talk to new fellow Americans.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I'm not afraid of that stupid mother fucker.
> 
> 
> 
> Doooooeeeeesssss........he want you to be.......?
Click to expand...


It appears that way, don't it?  He's sure got a lot of time invested in me.  I rent space in his head.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I'm not afraid of that stupid mother fucker.
> 
> 
> 
> Doooooeeeeesssss........he want you to be.......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears that way, don't it?  He's sure got a lot of time invested in me.  I rent space in his head.
Click to expand...

I think the two of you have got a real Sam and Diane thing going on.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I'm not afraid of that stupid mother fucker.
> 
> 
> 
> Doooooeeeeesssss........he want you to be.......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears that way, don't it?  He's sure got a lot of time invested in me.  I rent space in his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the two of you have got a real Sam and Diane thing going on.
Click to expand...


Don't know who they are, but she is definitely Diane.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I'm not afraid of that stupid mother fucker.
> 
> 
> 
> Doooooeeeeesssss........he want you to be.......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears that way, don't it?  He's sure got a lot of time invested in me.  I rent space in his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the two of you have got a real Sam and Diane thing going on.
Click to expand...

CHEERS!


So are you Norm or Cliff or Coach

LMFAO


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I'm not afraid of that stupid mother fucker.
> 
> 
> 
> Doooooeeeeesssss........he want you to be.......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears that way, don't it?  He's sure got a lot of time invested in me.  I rent space in his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the two of you have got a real Sam and Diane thing going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know who they are, but she is definitely Diane.
Click to expand...

Once again, this stuff really belongs over in the Flame Zone. You know where the thread is.


----------



## Unkotare

Liquid Reigns said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I'm not afraid of that stupid mother fucker.
> 
> 
> 
> Doooooeeeeesssss........he want you to be.......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears that way, don't it?  He's sure got a lot of time invested in me.  I rent space in his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the two of you have got a real Sam and Diane thing going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHEERS!
> 
> 
> So are you Norm or Cliff or Coach
> 
> LMFAO
Click to expand...

Somewhere between Woody and Coach.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Unkotare said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I'm not afraid of that stupid mother fucker.
> 
> 
> 
> Doooooeeeeesssss........he want you to be.......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears that way, don't it?  He's sure got a lot of time invested in me.  I rent space in his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the two of you have got a real Sam and Diane thing going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHEERS!
> 
> 
> So are you Norm or Cliff or Coach
> 
> LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somewhere between Woody and Coach.
Click to expand...

I thought Frazier was pretty good.


----------



## Unkotare

Liquid Reigns said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I'm not afraid of that stupid mother fucker.
> 
> 
> 
> Doooooeeeeesssss........he want you to be.......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears that way, don't it?  He's sure got a lot of time invested in me.  I rent space in his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the two of you have got a real Sam and Diane thing going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHEERS!
> 
> 
> So are you Norm or Cliff or Coach
> 
> LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somewhere between Woody and Coach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought Frazier was pretty good.
Click to expand...

He was good. The actor is a rare non-douche bag in show biz too.


----------



## Gdjjr

Post 622


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You hold NO law license, NO immigration schooling, nothing. Funny how you call others liars yet lie yourself. SMFH


You know this how?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Gdjjr said:


> Post 622
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> No you haven't. You hold NO law license, NO immigration schooling, nothing. Funny how you call others liars yet lie yourself. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?
Click to expand...

Public records, his own admission, etc


----------



## Gdjjr

Liquid Reigns said:


> Public records, his own admission, etc


I've read nearly every post of his from different sources- you, sir, are a liar. He's said he is a Lawyer- now, on to the public records- you know those how? And why did you bother with researching them, if, in fact, you did- what are you afraid of? Who hired you to try to belittle someone as insignificant as a message board poster who you claim is a phony?

He comes across as a lot more credible than you- FYI. You do nothing but taunt and make personal attacks trying to shoot the messenger. That you miss is obvious, to even a blind man, so, you try to double down on your attacks- and keep looking foolish, in public, making it a "public record"- how smart is that?


----------



## Gdjjr

Liquid Reigns said:


> You're quick to call someone a liar when you haven't any clue as to what you are talking about. He is not a lawyer, nor does he have any law degree. He posts his personal info all over the forums.


Quick? Nah- I've been here for the entire thread.



Liquid Reigns said:


> The rest of your drivel is just that. If you don't like what I say, I suggest you use the ignore button.


I could tell you the same-


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Gdjjr said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're quick to call someone a liar when you haven't any clue as to what you are talking about. He is not a lawyer, nor does he have any law degree. He posts his personal info all over the forums.
> 
> 
> 
> Quick? Nah- I've been here for the entire thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your drivel is just that. If you don't like what I say, I suggest you use the ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could tell you the same-
Click to expand...

The entire thread....good for you, I guess. 

You could tell me the same, the difference is I really could care less. SHRUG


----------



## Gdjjr

Liquid Reigns said:


> You could tell me the same, the difference is I really could care less. SHRUG


Yet you continue to shoot at the messenger- like I said, you, sir, are a liar.


That said, I don't agree with all of his *opinions*- I DO like reading his legal citations- as opposed to your opinions, they are quite credible.


----------



## Gdjjr

I repeat:  you know those how? 

And why did you bother with researching them, if, in fact, you did- 

what are you afraid of? 

Who hired you to try to belittle someone as insignificant as a message board poster who you claim is a phony?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

I reported the rules violations since Liquid Reigns violated the rules against linking to other forums 3 times ( I see they removed one that called me by name.)  I want to thank Gdjjr for calling out that damn troll in his attempts to doxx me and have a personal pissing match on every thread I participate in.  I'm sure that other site thanks Liquid.  They picked up two new posters (for a total of about 24 total posters) while this pissing match has raged on.  I end my contribution to this thread by reposting what Gdjjr said since we did not get an honest or logical response from Liquid Reigns:

I repeat: you know those how?

And why did you bother with researching them, if, in fact, you did-

what are you afraid of?

Who hired you to try to belittle someone as insignificant as a message board poster who you claim is a phony?


----------



## Gdjjr

I notice the mental midget,* Liquid Reigns, *has chosen to depart our fair discussion- for, ah -hem*, *I guess, greener pastures*. *I suppose it feels it stands a better chance, trolling elsewhere.

So, back to the discussion*, *"in context", ALL men are created equal- I think it's fair to say, "ALL",  is pretty much setting a context. No? How so?
On to a pertinent word definition, created- how does that happen? On an assembly line? Not where humans are concerned- or animals. So, two legged or four legged, feathered or from the water- are humans also given the ability to reason? Or, do we react from instinct? Since the feathered, the four legged and those from the water can't reason are we to be disrespectful of the role they play in *civilization*?

Let's move onto, equal, in "context".

All; As an adjective: 1)  being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value. (2)  having the ability or resources to meet (a challenge).

As a noun: a person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality.

So, in the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence where is the caveat? In the "context"?
The context of what? Time? Place? Environment?

The "context" of ALL men is pretty well "all" encompassing.

all: (used as a predeterminer); a person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality.

That opens another can of worms- status- is determined by whom? What? Context?
"Quality", well, even a blind man (or a cave man) can see everyone is wired differently- provided we allow that humans have reasoning ability-

However, our Public Education System, with political Mandates, determines what is important and obviously the centers for indoctrination FAIL, miserably in that regard.
We have over 30 pages (most of which has nothing to do with the original thread topic) cussing and discussing humanity- SMH-
It's pretty obvious, the irony escapes most, even the alleged *higher educated*- the formally trained script readers-

I am anxious to see the reactions this promotes- in "context", I might add.


----------



## basquebromance

amnesty costs a fortune. it could also cost us our nation

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> ...However, our Public Education System, with political Mandates....



What "political mandates"?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Gdjjr said:


> I notice the mental midget,* Liquid Reigns, *has chosen to depart our fair discussion- for, ah -hem*, *I guess, greener pastures*. *I suppose it feels it stands a better chance, trolling elsewhere.
> 
> So, back to the discussion*, *"in context", ALL men are created equal- I think it's fair to say, "ALL",  is pretty much setting a context. No? How so?
> On to a pertinent word definition, created- how does that happen? On an assembly line? Not where humans are concerned- or animals. So, two legged or four legged, feathered or from the water- are humans also given the ability to reason? Or, do we react from instinct? Since the feathered, the four legged and those from the water can't reason are we to be disrespectful of the role they play in *civilization*?
> 
> Let's move onto, equal, in "context".
> 
> All; As an adjective: 1)  being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value. (2)  having the ability or resources to meet (a challenge).
> 
> As a noun: a person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality.
> 
> So, in the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence where is the caveat? In the "context"?
> The context of what? Time? Place? Environment?
> 
> The "context" of ALL men is pretty well "all" encompassing.
> 
> all: (used as a predeterminer); a person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality.
> 
> That opens another can of worms- status- is determined by whom? What? Context?
> "Quality", well, even a blind man (or a cave man) can see everyone is wired differently- provided we allow that humans have reasoning ability-
> 
> However, our Public Education System, with political Mandates, determines what is important and obviously the centers for indoctrination FAIL, miserably in that regard.
> We have over 30 pages (most of which has nothing to do with the original thread topic) cussing and discussing humanity- SMH-
> It's pretty obvious, the irony escapes most, even the alleged *higher educated*- the formally trained script readers-
> 
> I am anxious to see the reactions this promotes- in "context", I might add.



The Declaration of Independence will always be mired in controversy.  Thomas Jefferson had a duality of ideology.  He played to a Christian audience, was reared as a Christian and sought the validation of a Christian audience.  As soon as Jefferson finished the Declaration of Independence, he went to work on the Virginia State Constitution of 1776.  In Section 16 that Constitution reads:

"_That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other._"

That is quite a departure from the misapplied "_separation of church and state_" phrase he wrote in a private letter to the Danbury Baptists.  So, what does this have to do with the Declaration of Independence?  In the Declaration of Independence, there is no caveat or limitation on God given Rights.  The Declaration says that it applies to ALL men and we know that Jefferson fathered children by a black woman, Sally Hemmings.  But, there is an "_out_" for those who disagree.  The Declaration of Independence talks about the "_ravages of the savages_" and the colonists had anti - miscegenation laws.  Slaves were not considered, by law, to be a full person.  All of this is best summarized by Roger Taney in the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision:









						DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




Then, despite what the laws were, the fact remains that, despite citizenship being limited to whites, ALL people had their *unalienable* Rights respected.  People came from all over the world to take part in the free market system.  So, I remain convinced that when the terminology ALL  MEN in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson included all people in that document and we are bound by it from a moral perspective.  At the legal level, maybe not so much.  Maybe the Constitution only guaranteed the citizens that their Rights would be *guaranteed* by government, but nowhere does it presume to deprive non-citizens of those Rights.  In my mind, the evidence suggests that most people today conflate the privileges and benefits of citizenship with the *unalienable* Rights of ALL men.


----------



## Gdjjr

basquebromance said:


> amnesty costs a fortune. it could also cost us our nation


No, it doesn't. Spineless weasels cost a fortune- there are some words you might want to consider- in the Declaration of Independence and the pledge of allegiance- would you like me to recite them to you?


----------



## Gdjjr

Unkotare said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...However, our Public Education System, with political Mandates....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "political mandates"?
Click to expand...

You act like a smart guy- figure it out.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...However, our Public Education System, with political Mandates....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "political mandates"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You act like a smart guy- figure it out.
Click to expand...

Afraid to say?


----------



## Gdjjr

I want to see the words about the constitution limiting unalienable Rights, in any capacity.


----------



## Gdjjr

Unkotare said:


> Afraid to say?


Afraid of who? You? LOL- you're nothing to be afraid of- like I said; you act smart, figure it out.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Afraid to say?
> 
> 
> 
> Afraid of who? You? LOL- you're nothing to be afraid of- ...
Click to expand...

Great. No reason to play coy then.


----------



## Gdjjr

Unkotare said:


> Great. No reason to play coy then.


I'm not playing and my name isn't coy- try again, smart guy-


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. No reason to play coy then.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not playing and my name isn't coy- try again, smart guy-
Click to expand...

You must be scared of something.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. No reason to play coy then.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not playing and my name isn't coy- try again, smart guy-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be scared of something.
Click to expand...


It appears to me you're having a meltdown as Gdjjr kicks your ass.  Look at the good side; you don't have to waste bandwidth projecting as you do the ultimate meltdown.  You could walk away.  OR stay.  Some are having a good time watching you get what you dish out.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. No reason to play coy then.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not playing and my name isn't coy- try again, smart guy-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be scared of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears to me you're having a meltdown ...
Click to expand...

Nope. Thanks for your concern though.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...  Some are having a good time watching you get what you dish out.


You are very conspicuously avoiding the thread just for you over on the Flame Zone. Why is that?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  Some are having a good time watching you get what you dish out.
> 
> 
> 
> You are very conspicuously avoiding the thread just for you over on the Flame Zone. Why is that?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't bother reading lies and bullshit for any amount of money much less for free.  You talk shit and hide behind shitsacks.  So, I don't even bother accessing that kind of tripe. Hell, I even apologized for accidentally posting there (I wasn't paying attention to the fact it was another thread.)  I do all my talking like a man.  You don't.  So, I'm not even bother reading that shit.  Good luck with it, however.  I'd rather watch you squirm around on this thread while you have your meltdown.  I think you met your match with Gdjjr.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

We've went as far as we can go with this thread IMO.   No matter what we say on the Internet, the cycles of history continue.  The debate rages on.  The _powers that be_ make some people disappear rather than to engage in honest discourse about this issue.  I think that all people are entitled to *unalienable* Rights;  I believe in the Right to Freedom of Association; I believe in the Right to own property.

That means that if all men have *unalienable* Rights, then no crime is committed when we engage freely in the free enterprise system.  Men can write unconstitutional laws all day long.  They can proclaim that which is honest and beneficial to be a crime; then the government can take from us the fruits of our labors and give it to those who won't work.  We can debate it all day long, but the one constant is always going to be change.  Those who try to alter the inevitable through oppression, tyranny, censorship, fear, terror, and infringements of *unalienable* Rights will ultimately fail.   Some people have the power to silence those who stand up for the Rights our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure, but they cannot kill an idea.  I trust that one day those critical of those words will remember what was said here.  Thank you Gdjjr for saying what I could not articulate in over 6000 posts.


----------



## Gdjjr

If people question what is wrong with this world they need only to read this thread (and look in the mirror) to view the animosity of the sanctimonious hypocrites- by that I mean, those who demand they exercise their Rights and deprive others of the same damn thing- those who *feel* they are better than others and in the same sentence/breath denounce unalienable rights with their ignorance are a stain on humanity- it's said that evil will succeed only if good men do nothing- the evil outnumbers the good by a wide margin. I can't speak to the rest of the world with a blanket statement, but, I will speak to the US Public Education failing miserably because it's knowledge transference is not founded in Truth- _we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, endowed by their Creator, and among these are, the Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- _

There are no caveats. Period. Words mean things, or they don't. 
For the erudite- the "context" is a timeless recognition of man choosing his path in life.
That some feel they have the moral authority to tell others when, where and how someone else can live speaks to a piss poor education.


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> ...  Some people have the power to silence those who stand up for the Rights our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.....


To whom are you referring?


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> If people question what is wrong with this world they need only to read this thread...




You may be ascribing more import to this one thread on this one site than is due.


----------



## Gdjjr

Unkotare said:


> You may be ascribing more import to this one thread on this one site than is due.


You may try minding your own business- 

due:  of the proper quality or extent; adequate. 

I'm pretty sure you don't have the authority to assign what goes on this site. Moron.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be ascribing more import to this one thread on this one site than is due.
> 
> 
> 
> You may try minding your own business-
> 
> due:  of the proper quality or extent; adequate.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you don't have the authority to assign what goes on this site. Moron.
Click to expand...

Verily! Thy august words upon this hallowed site shall ring for eternity!

 

Get over yourself.


----------



## Gdjjr

Unkotare said:


> Get over yourself.


Practice what you preach- it's called intellectual honesty where I come from.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Practice what you preach-......
Click to expand...

I'm not the one pretending some posts on one thread on one forum on one chat site is of great historical significance.


----------



## Gdjjr

Unkotare said:


> I'm not the one pretending some posts on one thread on one forum on one chat site is of great historical significance.


Your point? You're smart? Or special? 

It might interest you to know, I post elsewhere (you even disliked one of my recent posts, which does absolutlely nothing for your credibility in ANY form), and I do my best to live my beliefs- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable Rights- of course since you disliked a post on a different thread I now have to live with it- LOL- Moron. You might consider getting out of bed earlier, having more coffee, get your wife to pack your lunch, supper and a flashlight cause you're gonne be here a while trying to get the better of me- Moron.


----------



## Gdjjr

Now- go away little girl, you've become quite annoying.


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> ...It might interest you to know, I post elsewhere (you even disliked one of my recent posts, which does absolutlely [sic] nothing for your credibility in ANY form), and I do my best to live my beliefs- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable Rights- of course since you disliked a post on a different thread I now have to live with it- LOL- Moron. You might consider getting out of bed earlier, having more coffee, get your wife to pack your lunch, supper and a flashlight cause you're gonne [sic] be here a while trying to get the better of me- Moron.


 

There you go again taking yourself too seriously, princess.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It might interest you to know, I post elsewhere (you even disliked one of my recent posts, which does absolutlely [sic] nothing for your credibility in ANY form), and I do my best to live my beliefs- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable Rights- of course since you disliked a post on a different thread I now have to live with it- LOL- Moron. You might consider getting out of bed earlier, having more coffee, get your wife to pack your lunch, supper and a flashlight cause you're gonne [sic] be here a while trying to get the better of me- Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again taking yourself too seriously, princess.
Click to expand...


You don't know how to handle the truth.  What benefit do you derive from the incessant trolling and pretending you are talking down to others?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  Some people have the power to silence those who stand up for the Rights our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.....
> 
> 
> 
> To whom are you referring?
Click to expand...


I refer to those who start whizzing contests and suddenly posters disappear when the instigator (s) don't get their way.  There are certain points of view that are persona non grata and we will never discuss.  It's much more entertaining to derail serious conversation with fighting words that instigator (s) haven't the intestinal fortitude to actually be a legitimate competitor in.  Lacking those qualities, those individual (s) do not merit any serious reply.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people question what is wrong with this world they need only to read this thread...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be ascribing more import to this one thread on this one site than is due.
Click to expand...


Maybe some are trivializing the most important threads in the vain hope that derailing them has a net benefit.  Otherwise, why waste time with click bait?  If the topic did not merit serious consideration, how come some many posts in order to deflect, project, marginalize and deny the importance of the topic with so many man hours invested trying to avoid the substantive issues herein?


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It might interest you to know, I post elsewhere (you even disliked one of my recent posts, which does absolutlely [sic] nothing for your credibility in ANY form), and I do my best to live my beliefs- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable Rights- of course since you disliked a post on a different thread I now have to live with it- LOL- Moron. You might consider getting out of bed earlier, having more coffee, get your wife to pack your lunch, supper and a flashlight cause you're gonne [sic] be here a while trying to get the better of me- Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again taking yourself too seriously, princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know how to handle the truth.  ...
Click to expand...

What truth do you think you’re talking about?


----------



## Unkotare

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people question what is wrong with this world they need only to read this thread...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be ascribing more import to this one thread on this one site than is due.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe some are trivializing the most important threads in the vain hope that derailing them has a net benefit.  Otherwise, why waste time with click bait?  If the topic did not merit serious consideration, how come some many posts in order to deflect, project, marginalize and deny the importance of the topic with so many man hours invested trying to avoid the substantive issues herein?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think anything here is “important”? It’s a message board, not the Constitutional Convention for crying out loud.


----------



## Gdjjr

Unkotare said:


> Do you honestly think anything here is “important”?


Why do you keep trolling?


----------



## Unkotare

Gdjjr said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think anything here is “important”?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep trolling?
Click to expand...

Why do you constantly whine instead of answering simple questions?


----------



## Cellblock2429

Gdjjr said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a sense they did when America was flooded with low skilled illegals who would take jobs
> Americans used to do at about half the cost, all things considered.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you expound on, "all things considered"?
> How many people do you know will swing a weed eater from can til can't every day?
Click to expand...

/----/ Teenagers looking for some pocket money during the summer.  Ya know, that's who did the landscaping work until the illegals flooded the country, now you have grown men doing it.


----------



## Gdjjr

Cellblock2429 said:


> Teenagers looking for some pocket money during the summer. Ya know, that's who did the landscaping work until the illegals flooded the country, now you have grown men doing it.


Dreaming again are you? Teen agers can't leave their phones alone long enough- LOL


----------



## Cellblock2429

Cellblock2429 said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a sense they did when America was flooded with low skilled illegals who would take jobs
> Americans used to do at about half the cost, all things considered.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you expound on, "all things considered"?
> How many people do you know will swing a weed eater from can til can't every day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Teenagers looking for some pocket money during the summer.  Ya know, that's who did the landscaping work until the illegals flooded the country, now you have grown men doing it.
Click to expand...

/----/ When I was a teenager (1960s) we had plenty of distractions, but we also wanted some spending cash, so we mowed lawns, raked leaves, and pulled weeds for our neighbors. I grew up in the South so there was no snow shoveling jobs. Once we were old enough for a real job, we'd take any minimum wage job we could find, McDonald's, bagging groceries, and the like.


----------



## Gdjjr

Cellblock2429 said:


> When I was a teenager (1960s) we had plenty of distractions, but we also wanted some spending cash, so we mowed lawns, raked leaves, and pulled weeds for our neighbors. I grew up in the South so there was no snow shoveling jobs. Once we were old enough for a real job, we'd take any minimum wage job we could find, McDonald's, bagging groceries, and the like.


That was then, this is now-


----------



## sealybobo

Porter Rockwell said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  Some people have the power to silence those who stand up for the Rights our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.....
> 
> 
> 
> To whom are you referring?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refer to those who start whizzing contests and suddenly posters disappear when the instigator (s) don't get their way.  There are certain points of view that are persona non grata and we will never discuss.  It's much more entertaining to derail serious conversation with fighting words that instigator (s) haven't the intestinal fortitude to actually be a legitimate competitor in.  Lacking those qualities, those individual (s) do not merit any serious reply.
Click to expand...

Nailed it!


----------



## Cellblock2429

Gdjjr said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was a teenager (1960s) we had plenty of distractions, but we also wanted some spending cash, so we mowed lawns, raked leaves, and pulled weeds for our neighbors. I grew up in the South so there was no snow shoveling jobs. Once we were old enough for a real job, we'd take any minimum wage job we could find, McDonald's, bagging groceries, and the like.
> 
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now-
Click to expand...

/-----/ *" That was then, this is now- "*


----------



## badbob85037

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Please take back your Mexicans
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 319984
> 
> View attachment 319988


A town in California had a bad pigeon  problem. Ya couldn't go outside without getting bombed. The mayor put an add in a national paper to rid his town of pigeons. Three days later a man showed up and him and the mayor made a deal. The two would meet the next morning on the tallest hill on town. It would be for free unless the mayor asked a question, then it would be $200,000.

The next morning they met and the man pulled from under his coat a Blue Bird. He released the bird and as he flew around the town the pigeons followed the Blue Bird. When all the pigeons were following the Blue Bird he flew out of town. That evening the Blue Bird flew back to town alone.

That night the mayor called the guy and told him to come to his office. When he arrived the mayor handed him the $200,000 saying "I have got to ask you one question. Do you have any Blue Mexicans?"


----------



## basquebromance

America wouldn’t need so much Mexican labor if we allowed every aborted fetus to grow up and enter the workforce


----------



## jackflash

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Please take back your Mexicans
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 319984
> 
> View attachment 319988


Deplorable Yankee, that post of yours just got you a homerun with the freakin' BASES LOADED!!!


----------

