Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Slyhunter]

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.

Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.

 

[Flopper]

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?

Since Trump took office, we are living in one.

 

[irosie91]

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?

the very porous southern border is not porous to ONLY impoverished MEXICANS---
looking for a job. It is porous to all sorts of persons seeking to GET
INTO THE USA for all kinds of reasons. The people who MOST
object to the wall are those with an agenda to ALLOW ALL KINDS
of harmful persons to get into the USA to fulfill a whole host of
unwholesome agendas. I have absolutely nothing against impoverished
Mexicans.

 

[irosie91]

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.

Because we don't want them here. We can't allow everyone who wants to come to America to come here. Not enough welfare to feed them all.

Mexicans on welfare is the least of our problems

 

[dblack]

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.

Yeah, it really does. We might pass laws that violate that right, but freedom of travel is still an inalienable right that all people possess. But again, you have to understand the concept to appreciate that.

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.

You don't see how robbing and killing are different than traveling and working???

Robbing and killing violate the freedom of others - it would be a contradiction of the concept to describe them as "rights". Traveling and working violate no one's rights. And those freedoms shouldn't be restricted simply because you're overpaid.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I'm working to get past the name calling and political rhetoric. I'm committed to figuring out what it is you're selling, not defending my own positions - as you don't give a flying fu(% what I think.

If you want to get past name calling you'll need to put bri on ignore. Hint: his avatar is NOT ironic.

That's right. Facts and logic are wasted on idiots like you. That's why I always dish out a healthy serving of verbal abuse.

You dish out verbal abuse because you have neither facts NOR logic.

I'm waiting to see how many people agree with your proposition that you got your Rights from the Constitution. The SCOTUS disagrees with your proposition:

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

I dish out abuse to morons who are immune to facts and logic.

You must bitch at yourself all day.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Wrong they have a right to due process. The courts have affirmed that several times.

For those of you that disagree consider what would happen to Americans in those countries when accused of a crime if we denied due process to their people.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Your permission or mine? Please cite me that part of the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yeah, it really does. We might pass laws that violate that right, but freedom of travel is still an inalienable right that all people possess. But again, you have to understand the concept to appreciate that.

You have failed utterly to provide any evidence that it does. Until you do, there is no point in discussing it.

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.

You don't see how robbing and killing are different than traveling and working???

Robbing and killing violate the freedom of others - it would be contradiction of the concept to describe them as "rights". Traveling and working violate no one's rights. And those freedoms shouldn't be restricted simply because you're overpaid.

Foreigners who come here to live without the permission of our government do violate my rights. This country is a pleasant place to live because people like me and my ancestors built it into a pleasant place to live. The people who created it have the right to determine who gets a chance to share in it.

 

[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?

Since Trump took office, we are living in one.

Oh you poor witto snowflake. Show us on the doll where Trump touched you.

 

[dblack]

The people who created it have the right to determine who gets a chance to share in it.

They have a right to decide who they share their own property with. They have no right to tell others who they can share with. If I want to invite a bunch of Mexicans to live at my place and sell tacos, it's none of your fucking business.

 

[Flopper]

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.

But their ignorance is central to the argument. Trumpsters aren't conservatives. They don't know the difference between left and right. They are authoritarians. They're insecure idiots who long for a daddy figure to protect them from their lurid nightmares.

You put it pretty susyncally. People that worship authoritarians are as dangerous to society as anarchists. No dictator or totalitarian can rise to power without their support.

 

[bripat9643]

The people who created it have the right to determine who gets a chance to share in it.

They have a right to decide who they share their own property with. They have no right to tell others who they can share with. If I want to invite a bunch of Mexicans to live at my place and sell tacos, it's none of your fucking business.

The entire country is our property. The idea that we don't have the right to control who crosses our border doesn't pass the laugh test. You keep claiming it's a right, but you have posted nothing to support your contention.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

But their ignorance is central to the argument. Trumpsters aren't conservatives. They don't know the difference between left and right. They are authoritarians. They're insecure idiots who long for a daddy figure to protect them from their lurid nightmares.

You put it pretty susyncally. People that worship authoritarians are as dangerous to society as anarchists. No dictator or totalitarian can rise to power without their support.

That would be all the people who voted for Hillary.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

If it was about the freedoms to travel here, they would not be avoiding national check points that are established to get into this country. If you were to travel with the desire to live in Canada, would you be required to go through designated check points with a passport, or do you make it a point to go out of your way in avoiding them?

 

[dblack]

The people who created it have the right to determine who gets a chance to share in it.

They have a right to decide who they share their own property with. They have no right to tell others who they can share with. If I want to invite a bunch of Mexicans to live at my place and sell tacos, it's none of your fucking business.

The entire country is our property.

Once again, you're adopting the convictions of the liberal statists you pretend to oppose. Society isn't the property of government. It's the other way around.

 

[dblack]

If it was about the freedoms to travel here, they would not be avoiding national check points that are established to get into this country.

Which brings us to the core problem: all the barriers we've put in place to prevent people from traveling here legally. The only valid reason for restricting entry is if the person in question represents a real threat. Mowing lawns for below minimum wage is not a 'threat'.

If you were to travel with the desire to live in Canada, would you be required to go through designated check points with a passport, or do you make it a point to go out of your way in avoiding them?

Not sure. I don't know what Canada's travel policies are. If I was desperate to make a living for my family, and if Canada had all the good jobs, and if Canada passed laws preventing me from working there legally - I suppose I'd avoid their check points.

 

[bripat9643]

The people who created it have the right to determine who gets a chance to share in it.

They have a right to decide who they share their own property with. They have no right to tell others who they can share with. If I want to invite a bunch of Mexicans to live at my place and sell tacos, it's none of your fucking business.

The entire country is our property.

Once again, you're adopting the convictions of the liberal statists you pretend to oppose. Society isn't the property of government. It's the other way around.

This country is the property of the citizens who live here. Who owns the public highways and the public streets? We do. Everything that isn't privately owned is publicly owned.

What gives some peasant from Honduras the right to travel on the streets and highways that we built? Nothing. They have no such right. You have failed to prove they do. You only stamp your foot and insist they do.

 

[bripat9643]

If it was about the freedoms to travel here, they would not be avoiding national check points that are established to get into this country.

Which brings us to the core problem: all the barriers we've put in place to prevent people from traveling here legally. The only valid reason for restricting entry is if the person in question represents a real threat. Mowing lawns for below minimum wage is not a 'threat'.

If they have a right to be here, then why is that an excuse? We can't deport ex-cons even though they are a threat. Why should we be allowed to exclude anyone if your claim is true?

 

[dblack]

If they have a right to be here, then why is that an excuse? We can't deport ex-cons even though they are a threat. Why should we be allowed to exclude anyone if your claim is true?

Can't make any sense out of that. Can you rephrase?