Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Ame®icano]

You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.

Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.

Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.

We discussed this. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.

Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.

 

[dblack]

You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.

Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.

Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.

We discussed this.

Yeah. Did you forget what we talked about? Already?

 

[danielpalos]

Mandatory.
Nationwide.
Federal Law.
Now.

where is the express wall building power in our federal Constitution? We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.

The "general welfare clause" doesn't mean what you think it means.

it doesn't mean what You think it means.

 

[Ame®icano]

You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.

Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.

Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.

We discussed this.

Yeah. Did you forget what we talked about? Already?

Why don't you quote my whole post?

I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread.

Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.

 

[Ame®icano]

Mandatory.
Nationwide.
Federal Law.
Now.

where is the express wall building power in our federal Constitution? We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.

The "general welfare clause" doesn't mean what you think it means.

it doesn't mean what You think it means.

What you think it means is already in place in Venezuela, not here.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Mandatory.
Nationwide.
Federal Law.
Now.

See there. We only had to wait minutes on it. On this issue, we have to, unfortunately give danielpalos a half right.

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits states - or the people for that matter from inviting foreigners into the United States. Congress has a very limited power here.

It's interesting that you're referring to the "state rights" when just few years back left rejected any state's jurisdiction over the immigration.

The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.

When Arizona signed SB 1070 into law in 2010, the DOJ stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers "crossed a constitutional line" with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.

Don't get me wrong, I think that individual states should have control over what's happening within their borders, except over citizenship and naturalization (that is federal jurisdiction), but you lefties cannot have it both way depending on who's in power.

I will overlook your ignorance. I'm not a lefty. In the more than thirty years of voting - never missing a single election, I have voted for exactly ONE Democrat (and that was for the PSC.) I've also been an officer in my local Republican Party.

In my lifetime, I've been consistent. I didn't change; the people on the right did. My introduction into politics began as a young man who lost his job (as did a lot of guys) due to affirmative action and racial quotas. My position then, as now, is that employers have the right to determine WHO they want to hire. Now, let us get our facts straight.

During the lives of ALL the founders of this country, the states had control over immigration while the federal government had control over naturalization. Each and every one of the founders would be buried before the SCOTUS would do something downright dirty.

In 1875 the SCOTUS, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman granted plenary powers over immigration to Congress after the defendants in California failed to mount a defense. While the SCOTUS scolded the defendants for not presenting a defense, they went above and beyond their authority.

The SCOTUS is authorized only to interpret the laws; they have NO authority to grant any power to any other branch of government. If you can show me that authority I will change my views. It's hypocritical for us to whine and complain when the SCOTUS - or government in general tries to subvert the Second Amendment, but then try and defend the government when they use an illegal / unconstitutional tactic if we think we benefit off it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.

Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.

We discussed this.

Yeah. Did you forget what we talked about? Already?

Why don't you quote my whole post?

I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread.

Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.

From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?

 

[Ame®icano]

Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.

Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.

We discussed this.

Yeah. Did you forget what we talked about? Already?

Why don't you quote my whole post?

I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread.

Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.

From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?

I see where your'e heading. No, I haven't said that illegals don't have any rights, they just don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.

 

[Ame®icano]

Mandatory.
Nationwide.
Federal Law.
Now.

See there. We only had to wait minutes on it. On this issue, we have to, unfortunately give danielpalos a half right.

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits states - or the people for that matter from inviting foreigners into the United States. Congress has a very limited power here.

It's interesting that you're referring to the "state rights" when just few years back left rejected any state's jurisdiction over the immigration.

The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.

When Arizona signed SB 1070 into law in 2010, the DOJ stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers "crossed a constitutional line" with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.

Don't get me wrong, I think that individual states should have control over what's happening within their borders, except over citizenship and naturalization (that is federal jurisdiction), but you lefties cannot have it both way depending on who's in power.

I will overlook your ignorance.

Beside you're not being a leftist, what else in my post is not correct?

 

[bripat9643]

Mandatory.
Nationwide.
Federal Law.
Now.

Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"

You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.

Why don't you just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?

Tell us something, dumbass: why don't you stick your finger in a light socket? Are you afraid? Are you a light socket coward?

That's exactly how stupid your post sounds.

Why should I care about the freedom of illegal aliens?

Are you able to commit logic?

 

[OKTexas]

If there was TRUE equality for all, those sneaking across from our southern border would not be treated differently than those who wait overseas to come here and wish to become citizens “legally” through our citizenship process under Federal Law.

Then you have those liberals who try to call those that believe in this particular point of view “racist”, which only goes to show how uninformed they are on the subject.

Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.

Your avatar suggests that you are against big government, but the stance you take says otherwise.

"And it says in the Farmer's Almanac: If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble." Johnny Cash in the song Farmer's Almanac

Which is more important to you: that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?

Which is more important to you: that something be done legally OR that it be done constitutionally?

Trick question, right? Neither are mutually exclusive.

.

There are plenty of unconstitutional laws on the books. We simply have an uninformed, lazy and apathetic citizenry that don't give two hoots in Hell.

Sure, but that wasn't the premise of your question.

.[/QUOTE

I asked if one prefers that actions be done constitutionally or legally. It is an error to presume the terminology is synonymous.

Actually they are synonymous, a law isn't legal if it's unconstitutional. We just need judges that follow the Constitution.

.

 

[bripat9643]

You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.

Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole? Based on what evidence?

 

[Ame®icano]

You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.

Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole? Based on what evidence?

It's not that we're putting citizens into internment camps or something.

 

[bripat9643]

Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!" You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.

That's funny, you use the exact same reasoning calling for gun confiscation.

Yep. It's exactly the same. Politicians drum up phony fears to get people to give up their freedom.

You demand 100% gun confiscation ...

Uh... nope. You got the wrong guy. I'm opposed to gun control for the same reasons I oppose the wall.

There's nothing "phony" about the problems that illegals cause. They are real and demonstrable.

 

[bripat9643]

You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.

Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Having control over who is allowed to enter and stay in this country has nothing to do with fascism.

Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.

No one is proposing to crack down on the travel of Americans, fool.

 

[bripat9643]

You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.

Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.

you'd prefer a cyberpunk fantasy land? Without safety nets we'd have Americans living in the streets. We'd be walking over their dead starving bodies. Is that what you really want for your fellow American? Every American who wants a job should have a job that pays a living wage.

LOL - this is why I say there's not a dime's worth of difference between the left and the right.

Why is it that the people say that are always leftwingers?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Actually, cracking down on travel is one of the first things a fascist state does.

We discussed this.

Yeah. Did you forget what we talked about? Already?

Why don't you quote my whole post?

I'ts been discussed earlier in the thread.

Again. Nobody is cracking up on my travel, or citizen's travel or any of my constitutional rights.
Illegals have no rights to be here, therefore they have no constitutional rights that citizens have.

From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?

I see where your'e heading. No, I haven't said that illegals don't have any rights, they just don't have all constitutional rights and/or protections that citizens have.

The Courts disagree with you on that one. So, I have to ask you again, from where do your Rights come from?

Since you don't want to answer because you realize a very uncomfortable truth, is there any special reason you think you need the government to help you protect yourself from your own actions?

 

[OKTexas]

Mandatory.
Nationwide.
Federal Law.
Now.

Wall cowards gonna cower. "Protect me! I'm afraid! Of all the scary stories you've been telling me!"

You morons are turning our nation toward fascism.

Why don't you just move to a country that doesn't give a shit about freedom and loves authoritarian government as much as you do?

Tell us something, dumbass: why don't you stick your finger in a light socket? Are you afraid? Are you a light socket coward?

That's exactly how stupid your post sounds.

Why should I care about the freedom of illegal aliens?

Are you able to commit logic?

It's simply immoral to reward people who break our laws. It's simple as that.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Mandatory.
Nationwide.
Federal Law.
Now.

See there. We only had to wait minutes on it. On this issue, we have to, unfortunately give danielpalos a half right.

"Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits states - or the people for that matter from inviting foreigners into the United States. Congress has a very limited power here.

It's interesting that you're referring to the "state rights" when just few years back left rejected any state's jurisdiction over the immigration.

The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.

When Arizona signed SB 1070 into law in 2010, the DOJ stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers "crossed a constitutional line" with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.

Don't get me wrong, I think that individual states should have control over what's happening within their borders, except over citizenship and naturalization (that is federal jurisdiction), but you lefties cannot have it both way depending on who's in power.

I will overlook your ignorance.

Beside you're not being a leftist, what else in my post is not correct?

Not every law on the books is constitutional and, consequently, we don't have any legal obligation to obey unconstitutional laws.

 

[bripat9643]

You can;'t have a society with safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage and then turn around allow everyone who wants to to come here from poverty stricken countries. American jobs for Americans.

Which is precisely the reason I oppose safety nets, welfare, free medical, and the minimum wage. But the answer is to reverse those bad decisions - not use them as an excuse to turn our nation into a fascist hellhole. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Enforcing our immigration laws and building a wall will turn this nation into a fascist hell hole? Based on what evidence?

It's not that we're putting citizens into internment camps or something.

These boneheads are actually trying to argue that foreigners have a right to emigrate to the United States.