Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[dblack]

First, what type of Steel will be used to build the wall? Anyone know?

They're going to use the recycled iron and copper recovered from the Statue of Liberty when they tear it down.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.

Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum. It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States. If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.

What IS

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these 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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

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

Also see this:

Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities

Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?

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?

Our nation has laws on how foreign immigrants may become citizens, none of which is unconstitutional. I can site several judicial ruling opinions to very specific Supreme Court cases to back the right of the Federal Government regarding their Federal authority regarding immigration. You would have an extremely difficult time proving your case that laws regarding citizenship, as it pertains to an immigrant seeking to aquire citizenship IS unconstitutional. You are free to choose to go down this path regarding the Constitution if you choose, but in the end you will be proven wrong - you can take that to the bank.

Anytime you’re ready.

Game on. First off, check out post # 2806.

Then, think about it. When the founders were alive, the states, NOT the federal government were in charge of immigration.

Now, the SCOTUS can make any decision they like, but if they took your gun, outlawed your religion (or lack thereof) or maybe took your personal property without just compensation, you could look at this a bit more objectively. But, bottom line here: the SCOTUS does not have any AUTHORITY to legislate from the bench, grant powers to any other branch of government, nor deprive any individual of unalienable Rights.

If you disagree, you'll have no problem pointing that section of the Constitution out to us. Now, here is an opinion, not a ruling, but the opinion of SCOTUS:

" The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

The biggest problem we have right now is a lack of people to call the SCOTUS out and hold them accountable. They have POWER, but what they lack is constitutional AUTHORITY.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

What IS

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these 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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

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

Also see this:

Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities

Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?

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?

Our nation has laws on how foreign immigrants may become citizens, none of which is unconstitutional. I can site several judicial ruling opinions to very specific Supreme Court cases to back that statement. You would have an extremely difficult time proving your case that laws regarding citizenship, as it pertains to an immigrant seeking to aquire citizenship IS unconstitutional. You are free to choose to go down this path regarding the Constitution if you choose, but in the end you will be proven wrong - you can take that to the bank.

Anytime you’re ready.

Who's talking about citizenship?? We're talking about freedom of association, freedom of travel, freedom to do business with whomever we please.

You're talking about foreigners having freedom to live here. They have no such right, and we have no rational justification to allow it.

Based upon what?

 

[bripat9643]

My reply (if you were following) was in reference to the Federal law of citizenship VS those who sneak across our southern border illegally.

OK. And I'm pointing out those issues have nothing to do with each other. Opposition to the wall isn't about granting anyone citizenship. It's about the freedom of people to travel here, work here and live here.

They have no such freedom. They can come here if we give them permission. That's it.

 

[dblack]

You're talking about foreigners having freedom to live here. They have no such right, and we have no rational justification to allow it.

Of course they do. Rights are held by individuals, they are innate and unalienable. They are not "gifts" from the government. They aren't privileges afforded to the chosen few.

 

[dblack]

They have no such freedom. They can come here if we give them permission. That's it.

They do have that freedom, unless it is violated by a government.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

ROFL! The idea that you want to work for 1/3 the wage you make now doesn't pass the laugh test. Apparently you're in a field that doesn't have to compete with imported coolies from the third world. That's the only reason you're saying that.

No, I just take liberty seriously. The funny thing here is that you're adopting all the arguments of progressives and labor advocates. You want government to cater to your cowardly ass at the expense of others. Classic statist liberal mentality.

I don't give a damn about the liberty in other countries. Those people can secure if for themselves. That isn't why our government exists. What you're claiming is that foreigners have a right to live in this country. You have to be a fucking moron to believe that. I won't even discuss the point because it's so fucking stupid and absurd.

These “open borders” supporters don’t even have a clue as to what national sovereignty is. Every nation has a right to defend its own borders, and we are not the first nation to propose a wall as a means of border enforcement. It’s not unconstitutional, it’s never been proven to be, and each administration has set limits as to how many refugees and immigrants they are willing to allow to enter. They simply don’t know what they are taking about.

 

[bripat9643]

You're talking about foreigners having freedom to live here. They have no such right, and we have no rational justification to allow it.

Of course they do. Rights are held by individuals, they are innate and unalienable. They are not "gifts" from the government. They aren't privileges afforded to the chosen few.

Yes, rights are held by individual, and no foreign individual has a right to come to this country and live in it. Citizens have a right to live here. Aliens don't.

Your premise is a non sequitur.

Repeat after me: Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here.

When you finally figure that out, perhaps you'll have something rational to say on the subject of immigration.

 

[bripat9643]

They have no such freedom. They can come here if we give them permission. That's it.

They do have that freedom, unless it is violated by a government.

ROFL! According to whom?

Government can't violate a right that doesn't exist.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! The idea that you want to work for 1/3 the wage you make now doesn't pass the laugh test. Apparently you're in a field that doesn't have to compete with imported coolies from the third world. That's the only reason you're saying that.

No, I just take liberty seriously. The funny thing here is that you're adopting all the arguments of progressives and labor advocates. You want government to cater to your cowardly ass at the expense of others. Classic statist liberal mentality.

I don't give a damn about the liberty in other countries. Those people can secure if for themselves. That isn't why our government exists. What you're claiming is that foreigners have a right to live in this country. You have to be a fucking moron to believe that. I won't even discuss the point because it's so fucking stupid and absurd.

These “open borders” supporters don’t even have a clue as to what national sovereignty is. Every nation has a right to defend its own borders, and we are not the first nation to propose a wall as a means of border enforcement. It’s not unconstitutional, it’s never been proven to be, and each administration has set limits as to how many refugees and immigrants they are willing to allow to enter. They simply don’t know what they are taking about.

These idiots are actually saying the foreigners have a right to cross our border and live here despite what American citizens want.

I won't even bother arguing with that kind of horseshit.

 

[dblack]

These “open borders” supporters don’t even have a clue as to what national sovereignty is.

Mexicans aren't a threat to our national sovereignty. It's exactly that kind of hysterical claim that makes it hard to take to wall cowards seriously. If you're all so fucking scared of the "huddled masses", what will you do if we're actually attacked by an enemy?

 

[dblack]

I won't even bother arguing with that kind of horseshit.

Again with your false promises...

 

[dblack]

They have no such freedom. They can come here if we give them permission. That's it.

They do have that freedom, unless it is violated by a government.

ROFL! According to whom?

Government can't violate a right that doesn't exist.

Clearly, you don't understand what unalienable rights are. But that's not terribly surprising.

 

[bripat9643]

These “open borders” supporters don’t even have a clue as to what national sovereignty is.

Mexicans aren't a threat to our national sovereignty. It's exactly that kind of hysterical claim that makes it hard to take to wall cowards seriously. If you're all so fucking scared of the "huddled masses", what will you do if we're actually attacked by an enemy?

Having foreigners walk across our border with impunity is a violation of our sovereign. That's not a "threat." It's the actuality.

You're the threat to our sovereignty. You want to repeal all laws that allow the government to control our borders.

 

[dblack]

Repeat after me: Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here.

Is that how you got converted? Did they make you say that over and over again until you believed it? Talk about abuse ...

 

[Flopper]

All criminals are responsible for being separated from their children. Go out and commit a crime and see how fast you're separated form your family. The parents put their children in the situation, yes, they are to blame.

.

People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.

They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.

Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum. It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States. If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.

What IS

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these 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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

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

Also see this:

Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities

Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?

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.

Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process. After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally. So no, it's not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.

 

[bripat9643]

They have no such freedom. They can come here if we give them permission. That's it.

They do have that freedom, unless it is violated by a government.

ROFL! According to whom?

Government can't violate a right that doesn't exist.

Clearly, you don't understand what unalienable rights are. But that's not terribly surprising.

Sure I do. The difference is that I know their extent. It doesn't include any right of aliens to cross our borders and live here. People don't have the inalienable right to kill or rob other people, and they don't have the right to trespass in foreign countries. It's that simple.

 

[bripat9643]

People seeking asylum are not criminals, you fucking piece of shit.

They are when they cross our border illegally and it turns out their asylum claims are bullshit.

Liberals don’t have the slightest clue of the conditions and parameters surrounding asylum. It’s not some legalistic code word, as those illegal friendly lawyers like to suggest, that automatically allows you to live in the United States. If you are attempting entry illegally you should be deported by law - period.

What IS

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these 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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

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

Also see this:

Antonin Scalia Might Have Saved Sanctuary Cities

Is there an issue with immigrants that cannot be dealt with more effectively by our own actions rather than to subvert the Constitution and build a government too big for the citizenry to control?

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.

Most of those that are sneaking across our border, Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and Guatemalans have zero chance of immigrating through the normal process. After you reduce the established limits of immigration from these countries by the number living in US changing their status to legal residents, those immigrating that are sponsored by family members in the US, those receiving visas due to high skilled employment, and those receiving special dispensation such as the clergy and other special situations the only route left is applying for asylum or entering illegally. So no, is not a matter of just waiting your turn because the chances are your turn will never come.

So what? Why do you think we're obligated to allow everyone who lives in a shit hole country to move here?

 

[Slyhunter]

Repeat after me: Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here.

Is that how you got converted? Did they make you say that over and over again until you believed it? Talk about abuse ...

If we allowed everyone to come to America that wanted to we would no longer be America.

 

[bripat9643]

Repeat after me: Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here. Foreigners have no right to come here.

Is that how you got converted? Did they make you say that over and over again until you believed it? Talk about abuse ...

Prove it's wrong.