Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Flopper]

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

In most cities, citizens only get to vote for elected officials, referendums which have a sufficient number of signatures, bond issues, and other items specified in state laws. I'm sure you know what to do if you don't like how your city council votes. So stop whining. It's not a democracy.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) I am not arguing inalienable rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you ever read Proverbs 18: 13

Already did offer anyone open challenge to take place on another board. Take it to PM to arrange. No takers. People are afraid to go one on one on a level playing field. Got anything else?

 

[Indeependent]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) I am not arguing inalienable rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your posts are dissertations.
Physical Open Borders are good for people like you who love playing god to the underdog.
I already stated I prefer bombing drug cities to hell, collateral damage and all...much better than a wall.

 

[Slyhunter]

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

1) I am not arguing inalienable rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you ever read Proverbs 18: 13

Already did offer anyone open challenge to take place on another board. Take it to PM to arrange. No takers. People are afraid to go one on one on a level playing field. Got anything else?

Since 5 Billion is a pittance of the budget what is wrong with giving the President a bone? Doesn't he deserve a pet project just like all the other pork earmarks in the bills?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

America was founded on the principle that each person is born with unalienable Rights. The Declaration of Independence states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm now in a deep discussion with Ray, but will take a brief moment for you.

Posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613 and 3669 were necessitated by dumbassery of people who try to make the same points over and over - after being responded to umpteen times (NINE at last count for Ray.)

Inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, irrevocable, absolute... whatever term you like best. Those posts will answer you.

No American is guaranteed any U.S. constitutional Right, but then again, they do not have the Declaration of Independence AND the numbered posts delve into that deeper for you.

 

[MaryL]

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

In most cities, citizens only get to vote for elected officials, referendums which have a sufficient number of signatures, bond issues, and other items specified in state laws. I'm sure you know what to do if you don't like how your city council votes. So stop whining. It's not a democracy.

Not a personal thing, we get to vote on say, judges or trash pick up days or picayune minutiae. But you think complaining about not being able to vote on such significant issue as being a sanctuary city is whining..Are you nutz? THIS IS A DEMOCRACY, and we should be able to decide on such a thing. YES? A minority doesn't dictate to the majority its will, because that's just thinly disguised fascism. And that's some scary stuff you are putting out here.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

1) I am not arguing inalienable rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you ever read Proverbs 18: 13

Already did offer anyone open challenge to take place on another board. Take it to PM to arrange. No takers. People are afraid to go one on one on a level playing field. Got anything else?

Since 5 Billion is a pittance of the budget what is wrong with giving the President a bone? Doesn't he deserve a pet project just like all the other pork earmarks in the bills?

Again, see posts 2806, 3475, 3476, 3613, and 3669. We keep covering the same ground over and over.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

In most cities, citizens only get to vote for elected officials, referendums which have a sufficient number of signatures, bond issues, and other items specified in state laws. I'm sure you know what to do if you don't like how your city council votes. So stop whining. It's not a democracy.

Not a personal thing, we get to vote on say, judges or trash pick up days or picayune minutiae. But you think complaining about not being able to vote on such significant issue as being a sanctuary city is whining Are you nutz? THIS IS a DEMOCRACY, you moron.

You'd better reread Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution
Recite the Pledge of Allegiance
Read the Federalist Papers

 

[Slyhunter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) I am not arguing inalienable rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we don't control immigration we have the potential of having 158 million people from poverty countries up and decide to move to America to get a share of our American Lifestyle ruining for us who are already here. We paid for this lifestyle via our ancestors who both fought the Civil War, and the war of Independence from England in the first war of our nation. Our ancestors broke into the west and tamed it. Our ancestors bought with sweat, tears, and bullets the luxurious lifestyle we now have. If these people want the same lifestyle we have then they need to fix their own damn country and not ruin what we fought generations for.

 

[Flopper]

If people will give me a freaking break, I'll give you the post number, but it's been asked and answered in depth.

If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.

Are you drunk? What in the HELL did that mean?

I would never advocate giving up your gun.

But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?

Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?

Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)

From your New York Times (what else) article:

Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.

This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later

Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds

Notice the term strategic locations. Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006. Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.” Is that what you guys voted for?

 

[Clementine]

Building the wall is not wrong. Some politicians have much to gain, like voters, and they want illegals to overwhelm us. It's literally part of the plan. Some of you need to read the Cloward-Piven plan and Alinsky's Rule for Radicals. Or just watch what the left has actually been doing. Kinda like watching the movie instead of reading the book.

They don't give a shit about people. The open borders are controlled by the nastiest scum on earth- drug dealers, human traffickers, terrorists and other filth. The innocent victims are lured there by a promise of an easier life, but the majority are harmed before they get here. Kids and women are forced into the sex trade. Drug runners and traffickers rely on the easy entry to do their dirty business. And the left looks the other way. They know who is coming and they don't care. Even when some of these scumbags are convicted of violent crimes and murder, the left still doesn't deport them. Sanctuary cities release them back onto the streets. Even if they were deported, there is NOTHING to prevent them from coming right back in.

When a leftist talks about deporting the violent criminals, it's a joke when they want open borders.

 

[Slyhunter]

If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.

Are you drunk? What in the HELL did that mean?

I would never advocate giving up your gun.

But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?

Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?

Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)

From your New York Times (what else) article:

Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.

This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later

Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds

Notice the term strategic locations. Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006. Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.” Is that what you guys voted for?

So your saying he shouldn't compromise he should build a 2,000 mile wall or he didn't deserve to be elected by we who elected him?

 

[Slyhunter]

Adding to what I already wrote;
Parents try to build a better life for their children then they themselves have. They go through trials and tribulations they hope their children won't have to go through to attain the same lifestyle. Over the course of generations this goes from living in a log cabin and eating what you shot to what we have now. We Americans deserve the better life because Our ancestors built it for us. If you want what we have fix your own damn country. Don't come to America to water down what we have and ruin it for those who have already gone through the trials and tribulations to get here.

 

[bripat9643]

If police officers ask for guns should we not give them guns because in someone’s opinion it infringes on their liberties? I find that odd.

Are you drunk? What in the HELL did that mean?

I would never advocate giving up your gun.

But you’re OK denying border agents another form of protection they feel they need?

Who exactly are these border agents; the ones Trump's Customs and Border Protection Director hand picked for Trump's border barrier infomercial at the white house?

Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggested a border wall.
What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)

From your New York Times (what else) article:

Officials at Customs and Border Protection called the report inaccurate, saying it confused how agents’ feedback about security vulnerabilities is used to develop programs to counter threats.

This issue in March is in sharp contrast to this article in the Washington Times a month later

Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds

Notice the term strategic locations. Funny how a border wall changed to a 1000 mile wall, to a wall in strategic locations to a border barrier/border fence which is currently 212 miles long, 112 miles of it replaces a border barrier built in 2006. Unable to get a single dollar to build the great wall Trump promised on the campaign trail, he has now settled on a new strategy: repairing and upgrading the existing fence and calling that his “wall.” Is that what you guys voted for?

That's only for the first $5 billion, moron. He'll build the rest when he gets the money for the rest.

Notice how you're a fucking dumbass?

 

[MaryL]

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

In most cities, citizens only get to vote for elected officials, referendums which have a sufficient number of signatures, bond issues, and other items specified in state laws. I'm sure you know what to do if you don't like how your city council votes. So stop whining. It's not a democracy.

Not a personal thing, we get to vote on say, judges or trash pick up days or picayune minutiae. But you think complaining about not being able to vote on such significant issue as being a sanctuary city is whining Are you nutz? THIS IS a DEMOCRACY, you moron.

You'd better reread Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution
Recite the Pledge of Allegiance
Read the Federalist Papers

Democracy doesn't mean a tiny bunch of entitled elitists can impose their will on the majority, I will not let that stand. Nobody got to vote on sanctuary cities, and that is scary thing. Doesn't that bother anyone else? It's like someone hijacked our government. It's outrageous! Don't tells us what to think!

 

[Flopper]

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

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

.

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

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

.

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

If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so. In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.

These countries have immigration limits establish by congress. That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances. After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.

There's a rule that bans a person from legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas. However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally so they just keep trying.

Immigration laws make no sense. Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have a family sponsor.

 

[Slyhunter]

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

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

.

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

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

.

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

If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so. In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.

These countries have immigration limits establish by congress. That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances. After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.

There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas. However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.

Immigration laws make no sense. Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.

Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.

 

[Flopper]

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

If you ask a question or expect a reply from a particular person you need to issue a reply to that person, not to the whole thread which is at bottom of the screen.

 

[Flopper]

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

.

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

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

.

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

If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so. In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.

These countries have immigration limits establish by congress. That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances. After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.

There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas. However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.

Immigration laws make no sense. Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.

Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.

Absolutely not. We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense. Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.

 

[Slyhunter]

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

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

.

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

If you expect them to follow the same immigration laws and regulations and wait their turn then you have to give them a chance to do so. In Central American countries and also in Mexico to a lesser extent, these people have no chance to legally immigrate.

These countries have immigration limits establish by congress. That limit is reduced by family sponsored immigration, employer sponsored immigration, critical skills immigration, change in immigration status of those holding visas, refugee admissions, reserved categories such as the clergy and other special circumstances. After reducing the immigration limit for all these categories, there is essential no way to legally immigrate even if you wait for years.

There's a rule that bans a person from legally legally immigrating for 5 or 10 years if caught entering the country illegally or overstaying visas. However, in these countries that ban means nothing to people deported because there's no way they would ever get into the country legally.

Immigration laws make no sense. Why does it take over 10 years to immigrate from Honduras and 1 year from Ethiopia and never from India if don't have family sponsor.

Because we can't hold them all. You seem to think anyone who wants to should be able to move to America. That would be the end of America.

Absolutely not. We just need to have policies that are fairer and make sense. Do we really think Ethiopians make such good citizens that they should be admitted in a year and Hondurans should have to wait 10 year or more.

I don;'t think it works that way. We have a limit of 1 million immigrants a year. They divide that up. Doesn't sound to me they worry about immigrants in year 10 much less in year 2 they just worry about the limit for the current year. Now there may be so many Hondurans in line it'll take 10 years to reach a new immigrant applicant if they added themselves to the list today, but that is due to how many more are applying every year then being allowed in.

I would limit immigration to those with money or those directly related to someone in America. We don't need unskilled laborers anymore so they should be left outside of the cue, unable to ever immigrate to America.